ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Legal Aid

Yvonne Fovargue: When he next plans to announce progress on his legal aid proposals.

Oliver Colvile: What progress he has made on reducing the cost to the public purse of legal aid.

Bob Blackman: What progress he has made on reducing the cost to the public purse of legal aid.

Chris Grayling: I welcome the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) to my Front-Bench team. I also inform the House that Lord Faulks has joined my team in the House of Lords. I pay tribute to Lord McNally, who has left the Front-Bench team, for the excellent work that he did on behalf of the Government.
	I will shortly publish final proposals covering the two areas that are subject to consultation in the “Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps” document: the procurement of criminal litigation services and reform of the advocacy fee scheme. I anticipate that the total saving from the transforming legal aid proposals will be £220 million per year by 2018-19. That is in addition to the £320 million that has been saved as part of the Government’s previous reforms, which were enacted in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

Yvonne Fovargue: Trafford law centre closed last week, Barnet law centre faces closure in March, and many more advice agencies and citizens advice bureaux face closure or redundancies, which will reduce services for the most vulnerable. What assessment is being made of the impact of those closures, which have been caused by the cumulative effect of cuts to civil legal aid and other cuts, through an increased demand on other public services, such as the health service?

Chris Grayling: We will clearly continue to review those matters. The decisions that we are making are of course difficult, but we have to make them because we have to bring down the cost of legal aid to deal with the
	enormous financial challenges that we face. We would not have wished to take these decisions, but given the inheritance that we received from the last Government, there is no option but to do so.

Oliver Colvile: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the reforms are designed to impact on those who receive the most in legal aid fees, while protecting those at the lower end of the scale?

Chris Grayling: I can confirm that. In taking a range of difficult decisions, we have sought to ensure that the impact is felt most significantly higher up the income scale. I am well aware that people at the junior end of the income scale face considerably more financial pressure than those who are further up. We have sought to put together a package that has a disproportionate impact further up the income scale, for example through our changes to very high cost case fees.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Bob Blackman. Not here. Oh dear.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Justice Secretary’s plan A of dismantling the independent legal Bar seems to be going very well. Will he tell us about his plan B and the public defender service?

Chris Grayling: I am having to take difficult decisions on the fees that we pay for the independent Bar, but I have absolutely no intention of dismantling it. It is an important part of our justice system and will continue to be so.

John Randall: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on trying to get the costs of legal aid down. He knows that I have concerns about the impact on the criminal Bar. What alternative funding has he looked at or will he be looking at to get costs down?

Chris Grayling: We have looked at a variety of ways of minimising the impact on different parts of our justice system of the difficult decisions that we have had to take. I reassure my right hon. Friend that the decisions that we are taking on legal aid are in proportion to the decisions that we are having to take in the rest of the Department—the legal aid budget is coming down by the same proportion as the overall departmental budget. In relation to the Bar, I have sought, where I can do so, to put in place ameliorating measures, such as the offer to introduce a staged payment system, which at the very least will improve the cash flow of working barristers, even if we have to take tough decisions about the amount that we pay.

Sadiq Khan: I, too, welcome the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) to his position and congratulate him on his promotion.
	The Government’s salami-slicing of civil legal aid over the past three years and of criminal legal aid over the next 15 months will, according to independent experts, deny hundreds of thousands of citizens access to decent advice and representation. Law centres and high street firms are closing down, as we have heard,
	and junior barristers are leaving the profession. That should worry us all. If the Justice Secretary was provided with costed proposals that would make similar savings over the next 15 months but without the devastating consequences, would the Government reconsider their plans?

Chris Grayling: I sometimes find the Opposition’s attitude completely breathtaking. It is but two and a half years since they attacked our proposals to reform civil legal aid, saying that the savings should be found from criminal legal aid instead. Now they appear to have done a complete U-turn. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to commit in the House today that if a Labour Government are elected at the next election, they will reverse the cuts? I suspect that the answer is no.

Mediation

Bob Neill: What assessment he has made of the potential role of mediation in reducing the number of court cases.

Matthew Offord: What assessment he has made of the potential role of mediation in reducing the number of court cases.

Simon Hughes: The Government have put in place an extensive awareness strategy, and we believe that the more people can attend mediation, the more significant the impact will be on reducing the number of applications made to court. We have increased the legal aid budget for family mediation. There are data about the amount of mediation that takes place, but we cannot tell specifically who has attended mediation rather than gone to court.

Bob Neill: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Does he agree that mediation is well established in the commercial law field and growing in the family and matrimonial law field, but that we are perhaps missing a trick in two areas? The first is in ensuring that that more use is made of mediation in land compensation and related planning disputes. Will he meet me to discuss whether the Bill on High Speed 2 gives the Government an opportunity to promote that and to create greater awareness among fellow Departments, and—

Mr Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that if he was paid by the word when he was practising at the Bar, he must have become a very rich man indeed.

Simon Hughes: First, the whole Government are committed to mediation being used whenever possible, although it is not always practical. HS2 and other such matters are well beyond my brief, and I am not going to be that brave on my first outing.

Matthew Offord: In recent months, I have dealt with several cases for constituents, including one in which a constituent was presented with a £15,000 legal bill for civil court costs over the siting of his rubbish bin. Another constituent lost a case after failed joint legal action with the local council, when his wall collapsed after being damaged by
	a utility company. Will the Minister outline what measures the Government are taking to increase the number of such cases that are taken to mediation services before such costly legal action occurs?

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to identify the costs involved. In matrimonial and other matters, if there is mediation the average cost to both parties is £500; if they go to law the average cost is £4,000. Mediation takes 110 days on average; going to law takes 435 days. The Government are committed to ensuring that we use mediation wherever possible, and we will collectively promote it heavily over the next few weeks. There will be a round table and a web interchange, and it will be one of the priorities for me and the Ministry of Justice.

Diane Abbott: The whole House agrees that mediation is preferable to ordinary members of the public falling into the hands of lawyers. However, given that the Government’s emphasis on mediation is largely driven by cost, is there not a danger that in family law, women will be left vulnerable to violence and abuse because of the emphasis on mediation rather than immediate legal redress?

Simon Hughes: That issue is very important and well understood. Under the Children and Families Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, there will be a requirement that people consider whether mediation is appropriate. We are clear that in domestic abuse cases, it absolutely may not be appropriate, and there will be no requirement of mediation in cases in which it would be to the disadvantage of either party or to the children of the family.

Valerie Vaz: What guarantee can the Minister give that both parties will have access to legal advice before and during mediation?

Simon Hughes: At the moment, legal advice and legal aid cover mediation. Someone does not necessarily need legal advice to go into the process, although the mediators may recommend that they need legal advice, which will be available in a legally aided way. It is often necessary to have lawyers involved to draw up the agreement that the mediators have reached, and that will also be publicly fundable by the legal aid service if someone is within the eligibility limits.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the Minister advise the House on the take-up of mediation in the small claims courts since the threshold for small claims was increased to £10,000?

Simon Hughes: I do not have that figure in front of me, but I will willingly give it to the hon. Gentleman and make it known more widely. I am clear that we have a duty to re-engage people with the idea that mediation is available. The figures have gone down in some areas in the past year, and we want them to go up. We hope to be able to report a significant increase in the number of people using mediation by the end of the year, but I will of course give him the figures.

Andy Slaughter: We know that the Secretary of State is not a big fan of due process, because otherwise he would not have briefed The Times this morning on how the criminal justice and courts Bill will keep developers and other Tory donors happy by curbing judicial review—a subject on which he has not yet responded to consultation. However, Ministers should play by the rules when answering questions in the Chamber, so will the Minister correct the record for Justice questions on 17 December, when the Secretary of State said three times that there would be no change in the number of mediations, even though his Department’s figures show a year-on-year fall of 35%?

Simon Hughes: First, on matters in the legislation to be announced I caution the hon. Gentleman to be careful of being overly critical.

Sadiq Khan: It is all in the press.

Simon Hughes: It is certainly not all in the press, and the Bill might be much more encouraging to people than the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) might wish it to be. On the take-up of mediation, we do not have the figure for a full year but it is unarguable that figures have gone down. We are making sure, and we are hoping, that when we have the full-year figures, we will see that we have reversed that. I will keep the House and the hon. Gentleman updated about those figures over the year ahead.

Young Offenders

Julian Sturdy: What plans he has to ensure that young offenders leave custody better equipped to avoid a life of crime.

Karl McCartney: What plans he has to ensure that young offenders leave custody better equipped to avoid a life of crime.

Steve Brine: What plans he has to ensure that young offenders leave custody better equipped to avoid a life of crime.

John Howell: What plans he has to ensure that young offenders leave custody better equipped to avoid a life of crime.

Jeremy Wright: The Government will introduce a new pathfinder secure college in 2017, which will equip young offenders with the skills and qualifications they need to pursue a life free from crime. We are also enhancing education provision in young offenders institutions, and taking steps to improve the resettlement of young people leaving custody.

Julian Sturdy: Last year the York and North Yorkshire Probation Trust community payback team joined forces with local residents to carry out a spring-clean in York. Graffiti was painted over, broken fences fixed, and public spaces brought back to life. Will the Minister join me in encouraging more initiatives of that kind, which provide young offenders not only with valuable skills, but also a sense of community responsibility?

Jeremy Wright: I agree with my hon. Friend and think that where the court deems it appropriate, offenders young and old should be engaged in putting something back into the communities they have damaged by their offending. I also think it important that communities see that happening.

Karl McCartney: Will the Minister confirm that young offenders such as those in Her Majesty’s Prison Lincoln who have worked with Gelder Group, a forward-thinking construction company in Lincolnshire, say that better education and skills would help them stay away from crime once they are released from custody?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend is right: that is exactly what we hear from young offenders, and evidence is overwhelming that young offenders who engage in education, get qualifications, and go on to find work, have a better chance of staying out of trouble. That is exactly what we want to see.

Steve Brine: Does the Minister agree that custody in secure colleges provides an opportunity to end the chaos that many of these children face and to impose boundaries that have all too often been lacking in their lives? Will he stick rigidly to the cross-departmental approach that was set out so intelligently in the “Transforming Youth Custody” paper, which is now a year old?

Jeremy Wright: We want to see a cross-Government approach to this, and my hon. Friend is right to say that many other Departments have an interest in what we are doing. He is also right that a period of stability is vital. It may be a relatively short period of incarceration for those young people, but it is probably one of the few opportunities they have had to be clear about where their next meal will come from and where they are going to sleep, and to give us the space to address some of their significant problems. That is a large part of what we intend to do.

John Howell: As well as providing support to young offenders to turn their lives around, will the Minister say what regime is in place so that a young offenders institution becomes a deterrent for going back there?

Jeremy Wright: It is certainly important that the environment of a young offenders institution does not encourage those in it to think it is comfortable and to want to go back. For that reason, my hon. Friend will be encouraged to hear that we are looking at changes to the incentives and earned privileges scheme in young offenders institutions, in the same way as we have considered changes in the adult estate. We want to ensure that where young people have access to privileges, they get them only when they have earned them.

Keith Vaz: A report published by the chief inspector of prisons on 17 December last year suggested that it was easier for inmates to get drugs than clean underwear in prison, and a number of young offenders acquire a drugs habit in prison. How can we break the cycle when they leave?

Jeremy Wright: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that drugs in prison—whether adult prisons or young offender institutions—are a continuing problem, but as he and I have discussed, that problem is changing. Increasingly we see good reductions in mandatory drug
	testing rates for adult institutions—down from some 25% positive results to nearer 7%—but an increase in problems with drugs that are not in and of themselves illegal, but which should not be misused in prisons. For that reason we need to change the testing regime and give ourselves more tools to address the problem, which is what we seek to do.

Meg Munn: Under the previous Government, the youth offending teams brought together professionals from different areas to help to tackle youth offending and bring down youth crime. What is the Minister doing to invest in mental health services and drug rehabilitation services in particular? Skills are important, but, if the issues that affect many of our young offenders are not addressed, they are likely to return to crime.

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady is right that youth offending teams do valuable work. They continue to do that work, of course, supported by the Youth Justice Board. We are looking at the moment at how we can strengthen youth offending teams and have greater support from the Youth Justice Board to ensure that high standards are maintained. She is right, too, that one of the advantages of the youth offending team model is that it brings together a variety of different agencies, including those within the health sphere. She is right that mental health questions, in particular, are often relevant to addressing wider reoffending needs.

Bill Esterson: Children in care are some of our most vulnerable young people, yet far too many end up in prison due to a lack of support when they leave care. Will the Minister tell us what work he is doing with colleagues in other Departments to support care leavers, and to reduce the number of young people who turn to crime, both while in care and when they have left care?

Jeremy Wright: I work closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), the Minister with responsibility for children and families, who, as the hon. Gentleman knows, takes a close interest in the welfare of children in care and those who leave care. He is right that a connection is, unfortunately, often made between those leaving care and those who end up in the criminal justice system, but it is important that we address the needs of young offenders throughout the process. He will appreciate that the Ministry of Justice encounters these young people quite late on in that process, but he is right that there should be co-ordination and that will continue.

Dan Jarvis: Recently, a jury inquest into the death of a 17-year-old at a young offenders institution indicated a string of failures by the authorities to safeguard the life of a vulnerable boy. In the past 10 months, there have been 12 deaths in custody of those aged 24 or younger. In the past 10 years, there have been 163 deaths. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister consider inviting the Justice Select Committee to undertake a review into how deaths of young people in custody can be prevented?

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on this issue. Every one of those cases is a very real personal tragedy and a worrying sign for the system, but that does not mean that we should react in the wrong way. I think it is appropriate that we think very carefully about what level of investigation is necessary. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, as he may already know, that, in relation to each death, a variety of different investigations take place both internally within the prison system and from the coroner, and, in many cases, from others too. That does not mean, however, that there is not perhaps a case for looking more broadly at what wider lessons can be learned. That is exactly what we are considering at the moment. It is what I am applying my mind to now. I will let him know as soon as I can what we think the right conclusions should be.

Whole-life Tariffs

Philip Davies: What recent discussions he has had with judges on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on whole-life tariffs.

Chris Grayling: I have had no recent discussions with the judiciary about the Strasbourg Court judgment in Vinter and others about whole life orders. The reason for that is that the Government have been arguing in the Court of Appeal that whole-life tariffs are wholly justified in the most heinous cases. That process is continuing and we await the Court’s decision with interest.

Philip Davies: Mr Justice Sweeney has already refused to give a whole-life tariff to a murderer due to a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, and he has deferred the sentencing for the murderers of Drummer Lee Rigby, who most right-thinking people think should get a whole-life tariff. When are we going to withdraw from the European convention on human rights and the increasingly barmy European Court of Human Rights, so that we can ensure that a life sentence means a life sentence for the murderers of Lee Rigby?

Chris Grayling: I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. We have gone to the Court of Appeal to ensure we can continue to give whole-life tariffs in this country. My view is that this should always be a matter for Parliament, but as he knows, while we have good collaborative relationships across the coalition and while we agree on many things, there are some things we do not agree on, and this is one of them, so I am afraid that wholesale change to our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights, which I personally think is urgently needed, will have to await the election of a majority Conservative Government.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Justice Secretary think about what he just said? He might agree or disagree with an individual decision of the ECHR, but does he not recognise that having a European-wide convention which protects the human rights of everybody in every country that is a signatory to it is good for all of us, including victims of irrational justice decisions in other jurisdictions? Will he not declare that we support the idea of a European convention on human rights and that we will not withdraw from it?

Chris Grayling: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and I take a different view on this matter. I simply refer him to the recent comments by Lord Judge, the previous Lord Chief Justice and distinguished judicial figure who commands respect around the country. He said he believed the Court had overstepped the mark, and I agree with him. It is a tragedy, given the Court’s history, but it is the reality, and it has to be dealt with.

Julian Huppert: Does the Justice Secretary think it helps those of us campaigning for LGBT+ rights in Russia, for example, or trying to persuade Belarus to behave more like a responsible country for this country to be so negative about the European convention on human rights and the European Court? These are our standards, and we should be trying to export them, not pull away from them ourselves.

Chris Grayling: Fundamentally, in my opinion, the problem is that the Court is interpreting the convention as an unfettered jurisprudence that allows it to move into areas never envisaged by the people who wrote the convention. My clear view is that the Court is moving into areas that are matters for national Parliaments and which do not belong within the remit of an international court. It is a matter of disagreement between the coalition parties—we are open and honest about that—but we will leave it to the electorate in 14 months to decide which of our approaches they prefer.

Barry Gardiner: Would the Secretary of State care to reflect on the role of the European Court of Human Rights in protecting fundamental freedoms in this country that he would support? For example, it was due to the Court that journalists were not forced to reveal their sources and that people were allowed to go on wearing crucifixes when they had been told not to wear them. These are essential and fundamental freedoms that I know he agrees with. Would he care to comment on that?

Chris Grayling: Where I differ is that I do not believe it is necessary to have an international court deciding things that should be a matter for this Parliament and our courts. That is what needs to change.

Julian Brazier: I strongly support my right hon. Friend’s stand on this matter. Does he agree that just one example of how far the European Court of Human Rights has moved from its original foundations is that the British Government and the lawyers who were instrumental in setting it up were also responsible for the largest programme of judicial executions—of Nazis at Nuremburg—in modern British history?

Chris Grayling: It is certainly the case that the jurisprudence of the Court has moved a long way from where it started, and some things have clearly changed for the better, but I would argue now that the decisions coming out of the Court are matters that should be addressed in this and other Parliaments. Of course, this is an area where there are divisions between all the parties in the House, and I have no doubt that it will be an area of lively debate as we approach the general election, when the people will decide.

HMP Oakwood

Paul Flynn: What steps he is planning to take to improve the performance of HMP Oakwood.

Jeremy Wright: We are working closely with the contractor at Oakwood to implement the recommendations in last year’s report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. As with other new prisons, Oakwood has experienced initial challenges, but action has been taken and the prison’s performance is improving. We expect that improvement to continue over the next 12 months.

Paul Flynn: A prison officer on the scene described the disturbance as a full-scale prison riot, but the Government and the contractor described it as “concerted ill-discipline”—that might be a perfectly adequate description of the behaviour of Back-Bench Tory MPs. I urge the Government to abandon this PR spin and for once to tell the simple truth.

Jeremy Wright: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the term “concerted indiscipline” has been used by both Governments to describe incidents that have occurred in both the public sector estate and the private sector estate. There has been no cover-up. I went to Oakwood 10 days ago and spoke to an officer engaged in the incident. I also spoke to a prisoner who, although not involved, was there at the time. I saw some of the CCTV coverage, too, so I am very clear about how serious the incident was, but to describe it as a full-scale riot is in my view inaccurate. Twenty prisoners were involved in the incident, out of a total of 1,600. The wing is now back in use and the issue was professionally resolved. That is what we would expect from prisons in the private or public sector. I do not think it is wise to overstate the significance of this incident in the context of what happens in other places.

Peter Bone: Does the Minister agree that one way to relieve pressure on Oakwood would be to reopen the prison in Wellingborough, which took category C prisoners? Will he update the House on what progress has been made regarding Wellingborough?

Jeremy Wright: Even by my hon. Friend’s high standards, that is inventive. As I have said to him before, we will of course consider again, as he has asked me to, whether Wellingborough is a suitable venue for a large new prison for the London area, but that is entirely separate from the judgments we need to make about how the rest of the estate operates. However, I will of course keep him informed as our thinking develops.

Ian Lucas: The coalition has characteristically dealt with the difficult decision of whether the prison at Wrexham will be in the public or private sector by deferring it, probably beyond the next general election. How can we prepare to ensure that the type of incident that occurred at Oakwood does not occur at Wrexham in 2017, when we do not know how the prison will be run?

Jeremy Wright: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s case is that what happened at Oakwood was because it was privately run or because it was too big.

Sadiq Khan: Both.

Jeremy Wright: That is very helpful. Let me help the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend. In relation to the size of the prison, it was the last Labour Government who decided to set it at 1,600 prisoners, and in relation to its running, it was the last Labour Government who decided to put the management of the prison up for competition and not retain it in the public sector. Therefore, on both counts it is not us on the Government Benches whom the right hon. Gentleman should be talking to; it is those on his own Benches.
	In relation to Wrexham, we have quite properly said that there is an initial decision to be made, which is whether a large new prison should be built at Wrexham. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we were asked to build it on that site by his own council and a large number of other members of the Labour party in north Wales. The decision to be taken now is who should build it; we will make a decision about who should run it in due course.

Alan Beith: Will my hon. Friend look at what the chief inspector of prisons said to the Select Committee on Justice this morning about Oakwood, which is that there are special problems in managing very large prisons and in new prisons? When both things are brought together, there are surely training and staffing requirements that the Department needs to consider.

Jeremy Wright: There are undoubtedly issues that arise with every new prison. New prisons in both the public and the private sector, and of all sizes, have encountered these kinds of difficulties. My right hon. Friend is right, too, that it is necessary to pay close attention to the training needs of staff. We will do that—that is already under way—and both the contractors and the MOJ are keen to ensure that these issues are addressed.

Jenny Chapman: I am afraid this prison is two years old now, and we would have hoped to see some progress. The Minister is being way too complacent about the failure of G4S at Oakwood. Given the delay in implementing the probation changes, due to fears of public safety, how do we know that he will not be equally tolerant of failure when he privatises probation?

Jeremy Wright: There is no complacency on this issue at all. Let us get the facts right. Oakwood has been operating at full capacity since February last year, and it is not unheard of that prisons—in the public or private sector, as I said—have difficulties of this nature in the first two years of operation. That does not mean that we do not address those difficulties, but it is important to put them in context. If I may ever so gently say so to the hon. Lady, when I was at Oakwood 10 days ago, one of the comments made to me by staff who work there was that it does not help their already difficult job when their workplace is used for party political purposes to exaggerate what is going on there.

Victims of Crime

Priti Patel: What recent steps he has taken to support victims of crime.

Damian Green: The Government are giving more support to victims, and giving them a louder voice in the criminal justice system. We have introduced a new victims code, which gives victims more help throughout the criminal justice process. We are also exploring ways of reducing the distress caused to victims of sexual violence by cross-examination in court, and we aim to provide up to £100 million—more money than ever before—to help victims to cope and recover from crime.

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend is aware of my long-standing support for victims of crime. He is also aware that my constituent Marie Heath lost her job because she had to take time off work to attend the trial of criminals who murdered her son in Frankfurt. Does he agree that employers should show sympathy to employees who are bereaved in such horrific cases?

Damian Green: The whole House will sympathise with my hon. Friend’s view, and, in particular, with her constituent Marie Heath. The Government fund a national homicide service which supports bereaved people by, for instance, giving them access to support and guidance, helping them to explain their position to their employers, and enabling them to gain access to legal advice.

Ann Coffey: The extent to which sexual attacks and exploitation affect the way in which victims give evidence in court is poorly understood, and the difficulties that such people experience when giving evidence are often used to undermine them and their credibility as witnesses. The wider use of registered intermediaries would help to ensure that the evidence of the best possible quality was obtained during cross-examination. I know that the Minister is very supportive of that idea, but what is his view of the barriers that still prevent the use of registered intermediaries?

Damian Green: There are certainly no barriers as far as I am concerned. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of registered intermediaries. As she knows, as well as introducing a victims code, we are taking other steps to help particularly vulnerable victims of the type that she has described, which include the introduction of changes in the way in which they can give evidence. In some cases video evidence can be used, and we are consulting on how to surmount the problems posed by the multiple cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses in other cases. Obviously, we will continue that work.

Crispin Blunt: One of the Government’s objectives is to ensure that victims receive much more compensation and restoration from offenders themselves. What progress is being made in that regard?

Damian Green: I am pleased to report to my hon. Friend that we are making significant progress. Increased use of the victim surcharge means that more money is available for victims’ services than ever before, and we hope in time to double the amount that is currently
	available from £50 million to £100 million. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the fact that the extra money will come from offenders themselves.

Helen Jones: As the Minister will know, those who deal with victims of domestic violence fear that the services they currently receive will not be maintained when police commissioners take over the provision of support for victims, and those in areas such as Warrington still do not know how much money will be provided in April. Is he prepared to give the House a commitment that support for those very vulnerable victims will be maintained?

Damian Green: Obviously that will be a decision for individual police and crime commissioners, but they will all be very aware of the need to help, in particular, the most vulnerable victims. As I have said, not only will the total budget available be greater than ever before—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady says that I am not deciding how the budget is distributed. No, I am not: the decision is being made by elected people at local level, and I think that that is more likely to provide locally sensitive and tailored services than a decision made by someone sitting in London.

Ian Swales: Local commissioning of victim support will start in October. Will the Minister reject the proposal to base the funding on population rather than on the number of victims, so that police authority areas such as Cleveland do not lose out?

Damian Green: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. In particular, I do not agree with his suggestion that his area will lose out. The fact is that every area in the country will receive more money under our proposed system than it was receiving under the previous system, so no one will lose out.

Derek Twigg: Does the Minister agree that victims of assaults, especially serious assaults, should be warned when the offenders are due to leave prison? If he does agree, will he tell me what he is doing to ensure that that happens?

Damian Green: I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, and the system is there to enable that to happen. However, if he can cite individual cases in which it is not happening, I urge him to write to me, and I will investigate.

Property Boundary Disputes

Charlie Elphicke: What assessment he has made of options for reform of real property boundary disputes; and if he will make a statement.

Shailesh Vara: The Ministry of Justice is in the process of completing the initial scoping study on the issue of property boundary disputes announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) in February last year in her reply to my hon. Friend’s written questions on this subject. The Department will publish its findings in due course, when Ministers have considered the options.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the Minister for that answer. Property boundary disputes are stressful and cause a lot of heartache, and cost a lot of money unnecessarily. May I urge the Minister to move ahead on this and consider introducing reform proposals to this House?

Shailesh Vara: I agree with my hon. Friend that boundary disputes can often be bitter, protracted and indeed expensive. I can assure him that the Department is working at pace to come up with the conclusions of the scoping study, and we hope to report on that as soon as is practicable.

Victims Code

Robert Buckland: What effect he expects the victims code to have on the experience of victims in the criminal justice system.

Graham Evans: What effect he expects the victims code to have on the experience of victims in the criminal justice system.

Damian Green: The victims code will have a positive effect on the experience of victims in the criminal justice system. The new code gives victims clearer entitlements; a louder voice, including a right to read a victim personal statement aloud; enhanced entitlements for victims of the most serious crime, and vulnerable or intimidated and persistently targeted victims; and a more effective means of redress.

Robert Buckland: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. How will he make sure restorative justice measures are truly victim-led and that those who wish to seek restorative justice at a stage later than the sentencing process will be able to do so easily?

Damian Green: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that of the money the police and crime commissioners will be using, up to £18 million is specifically ring-fenced for restorative justice services. That funding will help us to ensure that restorative justice is available at all stages of the process so that victims can make properly informed decisions about whether they want to participate in restorative justice at the point in the process that best serves their needs.

Graham Evans: What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of how the victims code will support the victims of human trafficking?

Damian Green: The new victims code provides an enhanced service for victims of the most serious crime and that includes victims of human trafficking. This will enable them to have quicker updates on the status of their case and to have referral to pre-trial therapy and counselling, which is often appropriate in those cases.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister must have seen in the national newspapers this morning the incidents of alleged rape and how in some parts of the country there is very poor follow-up of
	these allegations. Will his victims code help those women who have been raped and then find that the police do not take their case seriously enough?

Damian Green: I agree that the point made in this morning’s reports is very serious, and I can assure the House that it is not just the victims code that will help. We have written to PCCs and chief constables encouraging them to use these recently issued data in conjunction with the data on referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service to improve all forces’ response to rape. We have also involved the Director of Public Prosecutions in setting up a scrutiny panel to look at how forces deal with rape in certain areas.

Alison McGovern: The criminal investigation into the Hillsborough disaster is still ongoing, but a very great number of people undoubtedly suffered, as we saw on last night’s “Newsnight”—I hope the Minister and Secretary of State will watch it if they have not already done so—when the survivors told their harrowing stories. May I simply ask the Minister to confirm that his Department will make available all support necessary to bring them justice as soon as possible?

Damian Green: When the hon. Lady refers to my Department, I should point out that it is the Home Office, where I also have a responsibility, that leads on Hillsborough. We are absolutely determined to do what she says through the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation, which is ongoing, and the coroner’s action, which is due to start next month. I know the families are very much looking forward to those as a way of getting to the truth.

Shared Services (Tendering)

Katy Clark: What his policy is on the tendering of shared services; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Grayling: As part of the next generation shared services programme, the Ministry of Justice is reviewing the options available for the future delivery of our shared services.

Katy Clark: A foreign multinational that has been awarded hundreds of millions of pounds of Government money to undertake work that was previously carried out in the public sector has admitted to exploring options to offshore that work. Surely the Secretary of State accepts that it is the Government’s responsibility to maximise employment in this country. Will he undertake to intervene if necessary to prevent that work from being offshored?

Chris Grayling: I have a track record of saying that I do not believe in offshoring UK jobs, and I will always look carefully at any such situation that arises. Whenever possible, the Government should prevent that from happening. I cannot say that it will never happen, however, as these are often decisions with a number of factors behind them, but I am not sympathetic to the offshoring of UK jobs.

Bailiff Reform

Jim Cunningham: What progress his Department has made on bailiff reform.

Shailesh Vara: We have legislated to set out the process that bailiffs must follow when taking control of goods, and to introduce a simplified, transparent fee structure. Further legislation for a new certification process will ensure that only fit and proper individuals can work as bailiffs. These reforms will come into force in April.

Jim Cunningham: I welcome that simplification, but what is the Minister doing to protect vulnerable people from some of the excesses of bailiffs?

Shailesh Vara: May I first put on record what a doughty campaigner the hon. Gentleman has been on this issue? I very much hope that the proposals that we will be putting in place in April will meet with his approval. We are putting in place a governance system that will make it absolutely clear when bailiffs—or enforcement agents, as they will be called—can seize goods and when they cannot, as well as how they should deal with vulnerable people. We are also putting in place a fee structure that is clearly understood and, most importantly, ensuring that enforcement agents have mandatory training and receive a certificate. If anyone acts as an enforcement agent without that certification, they will be committing a criminal offence.

Topical Questions

Mark Pawsey: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Chris Grayling: This Government are committed to reducing the number of foreign nationals in our prisons. While Labour was in power, the number of foreign prisoners more than doubled, at great expense to the taxpayer. Since 2010, we have begun to clear up Labour’s mess. We have reversed that rising trend, and we are now looking at every option to send more foreign criminals back to serve their sentences in their home countries. Earlier this month, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) travelled to Nigeria to sign a compulsory prisoner transfer agreement between our two countries, and I congratulate him on doing that. This is a significant achievement for the UK, particularly as Nigeria has one of the highest foreign national populations in our prisons. The agreement will be ratified in the coming months, and we expect to see Nigerian offenders being sent home within a year.

Mark Pawsey: The Secretary of State is working hard to improve the chances of those who have completed a prison term. Does he agree that locally managed schemes such as Future Unlocked, which he visited in Rugby last year, have a key role to play in achieving that objective?

Chris Grayling: I very much enjoyed that visit, and I pay tribute to the work being done in Rugby. In setting out our probation reforms, we have taken steps to ensure that smaller organisations not only have the
	opportunity to participate in that way but have the simplest possible mechanisms to enable them to do so, with transparency of risk in the supply chain, with common contracts to save on bureaucracy and with measures to prevent anyone being used as what is commonly known as bid candy. We want to guarantee that supply chains will remain intact—without changes—through our consent.

Sadiq Khan: Having seen the way in which the Ministry of Justice has been taken for a ride by G4S at Oakwood prison and by ALS in relation to the court translator services—both of which contracts were awarded by this Government—will the Secretary of State tell us just how bad a private company running a probation contract will need to be in order to be sacked?

Chris Grayling: Let me tell the House what being taken for a ride is. It is what happened under the last Government, under the contracts for electronic tagging, and we have been dealing with that and clearing up the mess in the past few months. I will take no lessons from Labour Members, who presided over an appalling system of contract management and exposed the taxpayer to considerable risk, leaving behind the mess that we have had to clear up. They are shocking, they were shocking, and I will take no lessons from them.

Sadiq Khan: The Justice Secretary has been in the job long enough to understand that the way it works is that I ask the questions and he answers them. He and the Minister with responsibility for probation claimed that the main reason for privatising probation is that the savings can be used to provide probation services to those who currently do not receive them as their sentence is less than 12 months. The Justice Secretary has refused to publish costings and to pilot his plans, and he is already two months behind schedule. I will ask him a simple question, and I hope to get an answer: by what date will all those on sentences of less than 12 months be receiving through-the-gate supervision?

Chris Grayling: We will begin rolling out the part of the reforms set out in the Offender Rehabilitation Bill in the latter part of this year. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he represents a party that was in government for nearly 15 years, during which time tens of thousands of offences were committed by people on short sentences who had no supervision when they left prison. The Labour Government did nothing about it. We are doing something about it, and it is not before time.

Julian Huppert: The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 is one of the great achievements of this Government but it left a few issues unresolved, one of which relates to humanist weddings, which are very popular in Scotland but currently not allowed here. The Act required the Secretary of State to conduct a review. What progress has been made on it, so that we can get on with allowing such weddings to happen?

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government made a commitment to have a review,
	and we will do that. We will be starting it soon, and we will have a consultation. We intend to have the results of the review by the end of the year.

William Bain: The Secretary of State had previously been adamant that no further contracts would be awarded to Serco until it had received a clean bill of health from the Serious Fraud Office. Will he therefore explain why he awarded it a contract for the extension of Thameside prison on 20 December? When is a contract not a contract?

Chris Grayling: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman was not in the House last June when I made the original statement about the electronic tagging situation and said that I had decided, in the interests of justice in this country, to proceed with two extensions at prisons run by the two organisations involved. I was completely clear about it, I explained why at the time and he clearly was not listening.

David Davies: Residents in Monmouthshire were recently very concerned when a man convicted of manslaughter absconded from Prescoed open prison. Will the Minister ask his officials to look into the risk assessments being used before prisoners are transferred to Prescoed to ensure that they are suitably rigorous?

Jeremy Wright: We expect that the risk assessments in all these cases are rigorous. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this case, and I will, of course, look into it and find out what has happened.

Bridget Phillipson: Sunderland’s courts are in urgent need of rebuilding, as the Department has previously recognised, spending nearly £2 million in preparation. I am grateful for the meeting that took place with the Minister, but we have been in limbo on this since 2010. When will a decision be taken?

Shailesh Vara: As the hon. Lady acknowledges, we have had a meeting, and I can assure her that of the 500 buildings the court estate encompasses, the ones to which she refers are very much at the forefront. She will appreciate, however, that we have a large estate and we keep matters under review, and we will keep her and her colleagues informed as soon as we are able to do so.

Ian Swales: More than half of the prisoners serving indeterminate prison sentences have passed their tariff date. Will the Secretary of State look at the parole and risk assessment process and review all cases where prisoners have complied with their sentence conditions but significantly exceeded their tariff?

Jeremy Wright: As my hon. Friend knows, we have abolished those particular sentences because we do not believe they are the best way to deal with such serious offenders. However, that is not a retrospective change, and a number of prisoners in the estate are still serving such sentences. He will also appreciate that the decision on whether someone is released from such a sentence is
	to be taken by the independent Parole Board, not by Ministers. He must also recognise that the tariff is the minimum period to be served in custody, not the maximum. None the less, we will do everything we can to ensure that the process of these sentences is as efficient as it can be.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State may recall that some years ago the police used a method called “trawling”, which became discredited, in order to find evidence about allegations against teachers and social workers. That destroyed many innocent people’s lives through false allegations of abuse. I understand that Operation Pallial is using trawling again, and many other hard-working social workers and educationists are being put in limbo and having their lives ruined.

Damian Green: I will happily discuss that issue with the National Crime Agency, which is in overall charge of that area, and will write to the hon. Gentleman with the results of my investigation.

Philip Davies: Does the Secretary of State agree that prisoners released on licence who reoffend or breach the terms of their licence should serve the remaining part of their original sentence in prison in full? If he agrees, what is he doing to ensure that that always happens? If he does not agree, why not?

Chris Grayling: As my hon. Friend knows, I have a lot of sympathy with him on these matters in areas such as breach of licence and automatic early release. For resource reasons, I cannot do everything that he would like me to do, but when he reads the Bill that is due to be laid before this House tomorrow, he will find things in it that are at least a step in the right direction.

John Healey: There are 33 firms doing legal aid-backed criminal work in South Yorkshire, but only one in four or five will get duty contracts in the future, which means less competition, less choice and less access to justice. Surely what we are seeing is the slow, lingering death of legal aid at the hands of the Justice Secretary.

Chris Grayling: The argument for consolidation in the legal aid world goes back well before the last election to reviews carried out, and arguments made, by the previous Government. Our current reform proposals allow those firms to retain own-client work, which is what they argued for. What we are setting out around duty work is designed to ensure that, in tough times, we can guarantee that everyone arrested and taken to a police cell will always have access to legal advice.

James Morris: I welcome the Government’s transforming rehabilitation programme to cut reoffending, but will the Secretary of State reassure me that those suffering from mental health problems, both inside and outside prison, will also get the help they need? Will he outline what steps or initiatives his Department is taking, in conjunction with the Department of Health, on the matter?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend will know that, in relation to sentencing options, the courts have a number of choices they can make over mental health disposals. On the point he makes about co-ordination, he is right that the best thing we can do is ensure that people with mental illness are diverted away from the criminal justice system as soon as possible. To that end, we have been working with the Department of Health on liaison and diversion programmes. We are spending a considerable amount of money on that this year and over the next couple of years. We expect to have full coverage of all police custody suites and courts in the next three years or so.

Sheila Gilmore: Given the continuing high level of tribunals overturning Department for Work and Pensions decisions, particularly in employment support allowance cases, why did the Department offer up to the Deregulation Bill a provision that would take away the duty on the Senior President of Tribunals to report on the standard of decision making? Surely reporting on that might lead to better decisions being made in the first place.

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady will be aware that the Ministry of Justice, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Department for Work and Pensions have been working very closely to ensure that decisions by tribunals on social security and child support matters are passed on to the DWP. That is happening and, as a consequence, DWP decisions are being influenced and its decision-making guidelines have been changed.

Robert Buckland: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State knows my interest and that of other colleagues in the reform of the criminal law of child neglect. Will he update the House on the progress he is making with regard to reviewing that particular provision of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is correct that this is an important area in which I have had fruitful discussions with Action for Children about the best way to make progress, and I hope to be able to report further on those discussions shortly.

Karl Turner: Why is the Legal Aid Agency expanding the Public Defender Service and recruiting barristers when reports from as far back as 2007 have found that it is between 40% and 90% more expensive than the independent professions? Furthermore, it cannot act in cases of conflict.

Chris Grayling: The Public Defender Service was, of course, set up by the previous Labour Government, and it is always important to ensure that it is staffed properly.

James Clappison: The Secretary of State will recollect the prisoner deportation shambles of 2006, when huge numbers of foreign prisoners were allowed to stay in the country on release simply because of administrative incompetence. Will he assure me that foreign prisoners who should be considered for deportation are now properly being so considered?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend will know that that is primarily a matter for the Home Office, but none the less I can assure him that those of us who work in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office do everything we can to ensure that foreign national offenders are deported as soon as they can be.

Luciana Berger: The House will be disturbed to learn today that since the CPS guidance on rape was amended in 2011 the number of people charged with rape over that period has fallen by 14%. There is concern that cases are being dismissed that could be successfully prosecuted. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that the CPS has the appropriate resources to ensure that no victim of rape in this country is let down?

Damian Green: I am sure that the hon. Lady heard the answer I gave a few moments ago about the action we are taking with the Director of Public Prosecutions, police and crime commissioners and chief constables to look beneath the detail of that and ensure that all proper cases are referred. I am happy that the facts do not bear out her accusation that this is anything to do with resources, as in nine police areas the number of referrals has gone up over the two years since the new guidelines came in.

Richard Graham: The maximum sentence for causing death when driving disqualified, uninsured and drunk is only two years and because of the rules of custodial sentences, the actual sentence served is only eight months. Does my hon. Friend agree that that only increases the sense of injustice felt by my constituent Mandy Stock, whose husband was killed in that way in Tredworth, Gloucester?

Jeremy Wright: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the advocacy he has engaged in on behalf of the Stock family. He will recall that we discussed the points he makes in the debate last Monday and I am happy to repeat what I said to him then, which is that the Government are considering carefully all that was said in the course of the debate and whether the sentencing is right for such offences. As he knows, we have particular sympathy for his points about those who cause death while disqualified.

David Hanson: On 23 January, the House of Commons voted 120 to three to release papers relating to the Shrewsbury 24. What is the Government’s response to that vote in the Commons?

Simon Hughes: As the right hon. Gentleman will remember, as he was in the Chamber for the debate, two things are happening. First, next year there will be a Cabinet
	Office review of the papers that are held and, secondly, a court reconsideration is in process. As a Government, we are ensuring that we increase transparency wherever possible but there will always be some papers that must be withheld on the basis of national security.

Philip Hollobone: How many foreign national offenders are there in our jails, how does the figure compare to last time and when does the Minister expect the first Nigerian to be sent back?

Jeremy Wright: Once again, I was ready for this one. There are currently 10,692 foreign national offenders, and when I last reported to my hon. Friend the figure was 10,789. The figures are heading in the right direction—

Andy Slaughter: They have gone up.

Jeremy Wright: No, they have gone down. Let me correct the hon. Gentleman, whose mathematics is faulty. Last time, the figure was 10,789 and this time it is 10,692. I hope that is clear.
	On Nigeria, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we will make every effort in conjunction with our colleagues in Nigeria to remove Nigerians by the end of the year.

Mr Speaker: That is obviously the Wright effect, or the Hollobone effect, or possibly a virtuous combination of the two. Who knows? I will leave the House to muse on the matter.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: One of the many excellent things the Secretary of State inherited from the previous Labour Government was an outstanding Probation Service in County Durham, which is now at risk from the Government’s privatisation. Will he now pay attention to the many issues raised in the Select Committee on Justice’s report of 22 January, and scrap that botched privatisation?

Chris Grayling: I do not recall the Justice Committee asking us to scrap our plans. Although good work is being done around the country by probation officers, we cannot go on with this situation in which 50,000 offenders are released from prison every year and left with no supervision on our streets, so that tens of thousands of crimes are committed, with victims around the country. We cannot go on in that way.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but we must move on.

Sri Harmandir Sahib

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Cabinet Secretary’s report on the Indian operation at Sri Harmandir Sahib—also called the Golden Temple—in Amritsar in June 1984.
	The House will recall that on 13 January concerns were raised regarding two documents released to the public in the National Archives. The documents relate to the painful events that followed the occupation of the temple site by Sikh dissidents in December 1983, which led to a six-month stand-off with the Indian authorities. In June 1984, a three-day military operation by Indian forces known as Operation Blue Star took place. Official Indian Government figures estimate that 575 people died. Other reports suggest that as many as 3,000 were killed, including pilgrims caught in the crossfire.
	That loss of life was an utter tragedy. Understandably, members of the Sikh community around the world still feel the pain and suffering caused by those events. Given that, we fully understand the concerns raised by the two documents. They indicate that in February 1984, in the early stages of the crisis, the then British Government sent a military officer to give advice to the Indian Government on their contingency planning. Many in this House and across the whole country rightly wished to know what connection, if any, there had been between that giving of advice and the tragic events at Amritsar over three months later.
	Within hours of the documents coming to light, the Prime Minister instructed the Cabinet Secretary to carry out an urgent investigation in four critical areas: why advice was provided to the Indian authorities; what the nature of that advice was; what impact it had on Operation Blue Star; and whether Parliament was misled. The Cabinet Secretary was not asked to investigate Operation Blue Star itself, or the actions of the Indian Government, or other events relating to the Sikh community in India. Although he has investigated those specific matters, I can make it clear that during his investigation no circumstantial evidence has been offered, or has surfaced, of UK involvement in any subsequent military operations in the Punjab.
	The investigation has been rigorous and thorough. The Cabinet Secretary and officials have met Sikh organisations to ensure that their concerns informed the investigation. They have spoken with individuals associated with the two documents, although some officials are now deceased. They have examined Hansard records from 1984 to the present day. They have carried out an extensive and thorough search of the files held by all relevant Departments and agencies from December 1983 to June 1984. Their search through some 200 files and over 23,000 documents found a very limited number of documents relating to Operation Blue Star.
	The report notes that some military files covering various operations were destroyed in November 2009, as part of a routine process undertaken by the Ministry of Defence at the 25-year review point. They included one file on the provision of military advice to the Indian authorities on their contingency plans for Sri Harmandir Sahib. However, copies of at least some of the documents
	in the destroyed files were also in other departmental files. Taken together, those files provide a consistent picture of what happened.
	The Cabinet Secretary’s investigation is now complete. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and it is now being published on the Government website. The report includes the publication of the relevant sections of five extra documents that shed light on the period but would not normally have been published. We have taken that step because the whole investigation has been based on a commitment to the maximum possible transparency. We want to be as open as possible with the British public, in so far as that does not undermine the principle, upheld by successive British Governments, of not revealing any information relating to intelligence or special forces.
	The main findings of the report are as follows. First, on why the UK provided advice to the Indian Government, the Cabinet Secretary has established that in early February 1984 the then Government received an urgent request to provide operational advice on Indian contingency plans for action to regain control of the temple complex. The British high commission in India recommended that the Government respond positively to the request for bilateral assistance from a country with which we had an important relationship. That advice was accepted by the then Government.
	Secondly, the Cabinet Secretary then examined the nature of the advice that was provided to India following that decision. He has established that a single British military adviser travelled to India between 8 and 17 February 1984 to advise the Indian intelligence services and special group on contingency plans that they were drawing up for operations against armed dissidents in the temple complex, including ground reconnaissance of the site. The adviser’s assessment made it clear that a military operation should be put into effect only as a last resort when all attempts at negotiation had failed. It recommended including in any operation an element of surprise and the use of helicopter-borne forces in the interests of reducing casualties and bringing about a swift resolution.
	This giving of military advice was not repeated. The documents show that the decision to provide advice was based on an explicit recommendation to Ministers that the Government should not contemplate assistance beyond the visit of the military adviser, and this was reflected in his instructions. The Cabinet Secretary found no evidence in the files or from discussions with officials involved that any other form of UK military assistance, such as equipment or training, was given to the Indian authorities. The Cabinet Secretary’s report therefore concludes that the nature of the UK’s assistance was purely advisory, limited, and provided to the Indian Government at an early stage in their planning.
	Thirdly, the report examines what actual impact UK advice had on the Indian operation, which took place between 5 and 7 June 1984, over three months later. The report establishes that during that time the planning by the Indian authorities had changed significantly. The number of dissident forces was considerably larger by that time, and the fortifications inside the site were more extensive. The documents also record information provided by the Indian intelligence co-ordinator stating that after the UK military adviser’s visit in February, the Indian army took over lead responsibility for the operation,
	and the main concept behind the operation changed. The Cabinet Secretary’s report includes an analysis by current military staff of the extent to which the actual operation in June 1984 differed from the approach recommended in February by the UK military adviser. Operation Blue Star was a ground assault without the element of surprise and without a helicopter-borne element. The Cabinet Secretary’s report therefore concludes that the UK military officer’s advice had limited impact on Operation Blue Star.
	This is consistent with the public statement on 15 January 2014 by the operation commander, Lieutenant-General Brar, who said that
	“no one helped us in our planning or in the execution of the planning”.
	It is also consistent with an exchange of letters between Mrs Gandhi and Mrs Thatcher on 14 and 29 June 1984 discussing the operation, which made no reference to any UK assistance. The parts of the letter relevant to Operation Blue Star are published with the Cabinet Secretary’s report today.
	The Cabinet Secretary has also examined two other concerns raised in this House and by the Sikh community—namely, that Parliament may have been misled or that the decision to provide advice may have been linked to UK commercial interests. The report finds no evidence to substantiate either of these allegations. The investigation did not find any evidence in the files or from officials of the provision of UK military advice being linked to potential defence or helicopter sales, or to any other policy or commercial issue. There is no evidence that the UK, at any level, attempted to use the fact that military advice had been given on request to advance any commercial objective. The only UK request of the Indian Government made following the visit was for prior warning of any actual operation so that UK authorities could make appropriate security arrangements in London. In the event, the UK received no warning from the Indian authorities before the operation was launched.
	The Cabinet Secretary also concludes that there is no evidence of Parliament being misled. There is no record of a specific question to Ministers about practical UK support for Operation Blue Star, and he concludes that the one instance of a written question to Ministers related to discussions with the Indian Government on behalf of the Sikh community after the operation.
	In sum, the Cabinet Secretary’s report finds that the nature of the UK’s assistance was purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian Government at an early stage; that it had limited impact on the tragic events that unfolded at the temple three months later; that there was no link between the provision of that advice and defence sales; and that there is no record of the Government receiving advance notice of the operation.
	None the less, we are keen to discuss concerns raised by the Sikh community. The Minister responsible for relations with India, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), and my noble Friend Baroness Warsi, the Minister for faiths and communities, will discuss them with Sikh organisations when they meet them later today. This reflects the strong, positive relationship the Government have—and all British
	Governments have had—with the British Sikh community, which plays such a positive role in so many areas of our national life.
	We are also determined to look at the wider issues raised by these events with regard to the management and release of information held by Government. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the 30-year rule has been superseded by a 20-year rule, so that from 2022 all annual releases will be after 20 years. However, it is not clear at the moment that this change is being approached in a uniform fashion by all Departments. The Prime Minister has therefore decided to commission a review to establish the position across Government on the annual release of papers and the ability and readiness of Departments to meet the requirements of moving from a 30 to 20-year rule, including the processes for withholding information. This review will be carried out by the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Alex Allan.
	Nothing can undo the loss of life and suffering caused by the tragic events at Sri Harmandir Sahib. It is quite right that the concerns that were raised about UK involvement have been investigated. It is a strength of our democracy that we are always prepared to take an unflinching look at the past. I hope, however, that this investigation and the open manner in which it has been conducted will provide reassurance to the Sikh community, this House and the public and, in that spirit, I present it to the House.

Douglas Alexander: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this morning?
	May I also take this opportunity to thank colleagues who have campaigned to help uncover the truth about the tragic events of 1984? I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and for Warley (Mr Spellar) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). They have done important work on behalf of many of their constituents, and it is only right that this House offers them its collective thanks for their determined efforts.
	As the Foreign Secretary has made clear, the 1984 raid on the Golden Temple complex—code-named Operation Blue Star—resulted in hundreds of deaths, devastating damage to the temple itself and rising levels of sectarian violence, which ultimately saw the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi later that year.
	I welcome what light the report sheds on the British Government’s alleged involvement in those events and the fact that some of the key documents relating to the event in question, and the British Government’s alleged involvement, have now been published.
	Serious questions continue to be asked, however, about the involvement, conduct and contribution of the British authorities at the time—going up to the highest level—in the events that surrounded the storming of the Golden Temple and that ultimately cost so many innocent lives. In the light of that, I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary the following questions.
	First, I regret that the Government have so far refused to accept our call that all relevant documentation relating to the incident that can be should now be made public. I welcome the publication of five further documents as part of today’s report, but, given that the report itself cites “officials interviewed” over the course of this investigation, will the Foreign Secretary now commit to publishing a list of those officials, and will he confirm whether any surviving Ministers who served at the time were interviewed as part of the investigation? Will he also confirm whether these testimonies will be made public?
	Secondly, on the terms of this investigation led by the Cabinet Secretary, I welcome the fact that, following representations by the Sikh community, the Cabinet Secretary published a letter detailing the scope of the inquiry. Will the Foreign Secretary explain, however, why there was a more than three-week delay in publishing those terms of reference? Will he further explain whether the terms of the inquiry changed over the course of the inquiry?
	The terms of reference, as published in a letter from the Cabinet Secretary on 1 February, did not include specific reference to the time period covered by the investigation, yet the final report sets out a time frame of December 1983 to June 1984. Will the Foreign Secretary explain why that time frame was not made public at an earlier stage?
	Many have already expressed regret that the investigation seemed to be covering only the first part of 1984, given the significance of events in the weeks and months after June 1984 and their direct link to the storming of the Golden Temple.
	Will the Government therefore task the Cabinet Secretary with setting out whether he believes that there might be grounds for a full inquiry covering a longer period?
	Turning to the substance of the findings, the report states that the UK military adviser in India from 8 to 17 February 1984 advised the Indian Government that
	“this type of operation should only be put into effect as a last resort when all other courses of negotiation had failed”.
	Based on the documents that he has seen, but for understandable reasons may not be able to publish, will the Foreign Secretary set out what type of operation was referred to in that case?
	The report also sets out that a “quick analysis” by current UK military staff confirms that there were differences between the June operation and the advice from the UK military officer in February. Will the Foreign Secretary explain the nature of the quick analysis undertaken on such a central part of the investigation? Does he expect a fuller review of that aspect of the evidence to be conducted?
	The report touches on the allegations that the potential sale of Westland helicopters was linked to the provision of military advice. It claims that no evidence was found to substantiate that allegation, but none of the annexed documentation so far released pertains to that issue. The report cites
	“ongoing contacts between UK and Indian officials around the time of Operation Blue Star on potential defence related sales”.
	Will the Foreign Secretary commit to publish this correspondence?
	A few moments ago, the Foreign Secretary spoke about the exchange of correspondence between Prime Minister Gandhi and Prime Minister Thatcher, yet only Prime Minister Gandhi’s letter appears to have been published today. Will he undertake to publish the response of Prime Minister Thatcher?
	Everyone in this House is aware of the continuing pain felt by the Sikh community around the world at the events of 1984—not just at the storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar and the deaths and destruction that followed, but at the anti-Sikh violence that followed the assassination of Prime Minister Gandhi, and the emergency period that saw arbitrary arrests, and accusations of torture, rape and disappearances that are still unresolved today.
	Although there are of course differences within the Sikh community on the issue of a separate Sikh state, there is unanimity in their horror at those events. For British Sikhs over recent weeks, there has been the additional burden of worry that their own Government may have been involved in those actions. The Government therefore have a responsibility—indeed, a duty—to address those very widespread concerns and fears. If they can provide answers to all those concerns and questions, we as the Opposition will support them in that endeavour.

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. He is right to draw attention to the efforts of several of our colleagues, on these and other issues, always to find out the truth about events in the past as well as in our own times. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) is another example.
	The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to refer to the anxiety about these events that many people have expressed during recent weeks. That is why we should do everything we possibly can to set out the truth of the matter, in so far as that can be discovered from documents and from discussions with officials. Taking what I said earlier as a whole, I think that the story is a reassuring one for the House, the public and the Sikh community.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked certain specific questions about the process. He asked whether we would publish a list of officials. No, I do not think that that would be appropriate. It is important to protect the anonymity of some of the officials and military personnel involved. He asked whether Ministers have been spoken to. Yes, the Cabinet Secretary’s investigation included discussions with the senior Ministers of the time. He asked whether the terms of the inquiry changed. No, they did not change, except that the Cabinet Secretary’s work was expanded to cover some additional concerns that were raised during the past few weeks—we may come to some of them later during questions—but the terms of the inquiry remained the same.
	There is no mystery about the dates. At the beginning, the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary to investigate the specific events—whether there had been UK involvement in the specific events leading up to and during Operation Blue Star in June 1984—and the time frame was therefore from the start of what happened at the location in question in December 1983 to the Indian operation in June 1984. As the right hon. Gentleman will have gathered from my statement, the Cabinet Secretary was able to go beyond that to say that in the 23,000 documents he has seen no circumstantial evidence
	of British involvement in any subsequent military operation in the Punjab. One of the questions raised is whether there could have been British military involvement in subsequent Operations Black Thunder I and II. From everything that the Cabinet Secretary has seen, having examined hundreds of files—200 files—the answer to that is no.
	The relevant documents—those that can be published while, as I have said, upholding the publication principles that all British Government have always observed—that relate specifically to Operation Blue Star have been published. There will of course be publication over the coming years of many more documents concerning British relations with India at the time. I certainly do not want to suggest that no more documents will be published that can shed light on relations between Britain and India through the 1980s. As I understand it, the 30-year rule—it will become the 20-year rule—is implemented on the basis of 30 years from files coming to an end, but such files contain documents from earlier years. Therefore, other documents will of course be published about this period. However, the relevant files have all been searched, and these are the documents that shed light on Blue Star.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the quick analysis by the military. I do not think that the word “quick” should be used in a pejorative sense. The report has been quite quick, given that concerns arose only a few weeks ago, and military experts have provided an analysis, but it is clear even to a layman that the military operation mounted was very different from any that was discussed in the documents. As I mentioned earlier, it was entirely different: it did not have the element of surprise; there were no helicopter-borne forces; and it was conducted by the Indian army, not by the paramilitary forces present when the UK military adviser was there in February. Even to the non-expert on such matters, the military operation mounted in June was clearly fundamentally different from any discussed in February 1984.
	Overall, I therefore think that this report has the right degree—a strong degree—of transparency, and is a thorough and good job by the Cabinet Secretary, and we should be prepared to support it as such.

Paul Uppal: I thank my right hon. Friend for his swiftness in making a statement in the House. Most importantly, it is right to recognise that British involvement was not in any shape or form malicious, and particularly to recognise the line that the military option was going to be used only as a last resort.
	None of us can change what happened yesterday, but we can change today and tomorrow. If documents cannot be released to the general public, will my right hon. Friend take the unusual step of making sure that they are released to the widest possible audience, but within a proper environment? In addition, will he work with fellow parliamentarians, Sikh organisations and the Indian high commission to start a process of truth and reconciliation so that, after 30 years, victims and families can finally start to feel a sense of justice?

William Hague: I fully accept my hon. Friend’s points. It is important, in doing everything we can to establish the truth when controversies such as this arise, to help in
	the process of being able to move on from these terrible events and to encourage people to live and work together successfully.
	I will certainly look at my hon. Friend’s point about the release of documents. That is one of the issues that the review on the release of documents can cover, because questions arise over when documents should be withheld and how the 30-year rule, which is to become the 20-year rule, is implemented. Those are fair questions that can be looked at in Sir Alex Allan’s review. We all want to ensure that the same reassuring transparency evident in the Cabinet Secretary’s report continues as further documents are released in future years.

Tom Watson: I must take issue with the Foreign Secretary’s conclusions. In 1984, the Commons was told that a march to commemorate the thousands of massacred Sikhs was cancelled on public order grounds, but newly revealed Cabinet minutes show the real reason. They state:
	“In view of the importance of the British political and commercial interests at stake, it would be necessary to explore every possibility of preventing the march from taking place. Export contracts worth £5 billion could be at stake.”
	In the year in which we will commemorate the loss of 80,000 Sikhs in the 1914-18 war, is it not the least we can do to apologise to the Sikhs who were misled in 1984?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman should be clear about what the Cabinet Secretary is saying in this report, because he is making a different point about different events.

Tom Watson: I’m not.

William Hague: By definition, he is. Let me explain. What the Cabinet Secretary is saying in his report is that there is no evidence in the files that the provision of UK military advice in February 1984 was linked to defence sales or any other policy issue.

Tom Watson: Did you look at the Cabinet minutes?

William Hague: I can only explain the facts as they have been presented by the Cabinet Secretary. The evidence from the 23,000 documents is that there was no such link. The Cabinet Secretary is not saying that such matters were not of importance in wider relations or other matters of policy between India and the UK. He is saying that on this issue, that is what the documents show. We all have to work from what the documents show.

Martin Horwood: Given the distress that is felt by the Sikh community and its desire for clarity on the events at Sri Harmandir Sahib, it is obviously very regrettable that a key file was destroyed in 2009. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House at what level oversight would have been exercised or permission given for the destruction of that file? Do we need to review the procedures to ensure that such sensitive and important material is not destroyed in future?

William Hague: That is an important point and the review by Sir Alex Allan that I have just announced will be able to cover it. Such decisions are made at official level and
	go on all the time under all Governments. They are not made on any political basis or conducted by Ministers. The implementation of the 30-year rule and, as in this case, the reviewing of documents by the Ministry of Defence at the 25-year point are continuous official processes. Judgments have to be made all the time about what is released and, as in this case, what is destroyed. We can all question that particular judgment in retrospect. The review that has been established must consider such issues so that we can all be satisfied that important files will not be destroyed in future.

Anas Sarwar: This issue has caused great sadness to the Sikh community in Scotland, across the UK and across the world. That community enriches our economy, our culture and our society, and the very least that it deserves from this process is closure. It will never overcome the sadness or get those lives back. Sadly, I do not think that today’s report gives it the closure that it needs. I urge the Foreign Secretary to have a further investigation that looks into the full communications that took place between the UK Government and the Indian Government in the lead-up to the storming of the temple and during the events that followed.

William Hague: I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman the extent and thoroughness of what the Cabinet Secretary has done. Twenty-three thousand documents is not a small number, even by Government standards, and 200 files is not a small number. The investigation has been conducted by the Cabinet Secretary, not by me or any other Minister. Having read the report, I have no reason to think that it is not a very thorough piece of work. I think that it helps all of us, including people in the Sikh community, whom the hon. Gentleman was quite right to speak about in the terms that he did, to understand the events and to see them in their true light. As I said earlier, I hope that it will be of some reassurance to the Sikh community, the House and the wider public.

Edward Garnier: Given the strong and deep links between the Sikh community in my constituency and India, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the reaction of Sikhs in Britain on the publication of the documents not so long ago was entirely understandable? He mentioned the possibility that further documents that reflect back on the period in question will come to light in due course. Will he use his best efforts to ensure that similar surprises are eliminated or at least mitigated to prevent such an understandable reaction happening unnecessarily in future?

William Hague: I absolutely agree with my hon. and learned Friend that people were right to feel very concerned and anxious when they heard about this matter last month. I do not think that we can avoid all surprises on all issues when Government documents are published. We want such documents to be published. In fact, we want them to be published faster. This Government have brought in the 20-year rule. There will be surprises on other issues, no matter which Government or party was in power. We cannot screen them out. When issues are raised that cause great concern and when there is a
	legitimate demand for past events to be investigated, we should investigate them in exactly the way that we have on this occasion.

Seema Malhotra: The Foreign Secretary is right to describe the loss of life in 1984 as an utter tragedy. My constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members have raised their concerns and shared their personal stories of family members who were affected. Understandably, this will not be the end of the matter. My constituents will want to have time to study the report, to be able to raise questions and to reach what other Members have described as closure on this terribly tragic matter. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to ongoing dialogue and meetings with representatives of the Sikh community so that people feel that their needs and questions have been heard?

William Hague: The hon. Lady is quite right. She is right to say that people will want to read the report. It was only published to the public as I began my statement. I hope that it is widely read and discussed. She is also right to say that the process of dialogue and understanding should go on. That will happen this afternoon as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), holds meetings. We are all happy to carry on that process in the Foreign Office, as are those in other Departments. My noble Friend Baroness Warsi, who is the Minister for faith and communities, will be involved in such meetings. That process of discussion, which may help to bring closure, will certainly go on.

Mr Speaker: I call Sir Edward Leigh.

Edward Leigh: I was not actually standing, Mr Speaker, but if you want me to, I will ask one very short question. Why were we consulted in the first place—why us?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was certainly standing at one point because he is on my list. Anyway, he is the most dextrous of fellows and is always capable of adjusting, as he has just proved.

William Hague: My hon. Friend has managed to ask an interesting question, even though he was not expecting to. It is not obvious from the documents why we were consulted. We can all guess why it was. In facing this situation, India wanted expertise from the rest of the world. British expertise in tackling difficult security situations was renowned at that time, as it is today. British advice was therefore asked for. I think that that is the simple explanation.

Mr Speaker: I do not want to dispute the word of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Perhaps he was just having a therapeutic stretch.

Virendra Sharma: As a Punjabi, having been born and brought up there and having studied in institutions run by the Sikh community back in Punjab, I fully understand the feelings and sentiments that exist. As my hon. Friend the Member
	for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) asked, will the Foreign Secretary commit to investigating further the points that he raised in his statement?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman understands well that the statement and the Cabinet Secretary’s report are about specific events. There are many other aspects of relations between the UK and India—many positive ones, and sometimes controversial ones. Whenever there is something that we feel should be investigated we must be prepared to do so, but I have not seen, and the Cabinet Secretary has not turned up in producing the report, other circumstantial evidence that we think requires such investigation. Of course, we do not know what evidence will ever be turned up in future, so we cannot rule out all investigations for the future.

Richard Ottaway: It is important to put issues such as this in context. The incident was in 1984, just three years after the Iranian embassy siege, which the UK’s security forces dealt with successfully. Does the Foreign Secretary agree—this may answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—that given the expertise in handling such situations that had been developed at the time, a request for help in the circumstances was completely understandable?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend has answered the spontaneous question that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) asked. I am glad that this discussion is going on in the House without the need for me to intervene in it.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) is right. The Iranian embassy siege had taken place a few years earlier, and it was known across the world that British forces were skilled in conducting operations with minimal loss of life. That is always the spirit in which they give advice, and from everything we can see, that was the spirit on that occasion, although it is not for us to defend or promote the decisions made 30 years ago. He is almost certainly correct.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Foreign Secretary said that there was no evidence of Parliament being misled. As he is aware, my predecessor as MP for Slough was told by a Foreign Office Minister on 30 July 1984:
	“As this is an internal Indian matter, we have not sought to discuss it with the Indian Government.” —[Official Report, 30 July 1984; Vol. 65, c. 111W.]
	The rest of the paragraph answering my predecessor’s question was simply a description of the nature of that question. The Foreign Secretary has informed us that the Cabinet Secretary did not examine papers from after 5 June, so it would seem impossible to know from his inquiry whether there had been discussions with the Indian Government by 30 July. Will the Foreign Secretary agree to examine whether there were discussions with the Indian Government after 6 June, at a time when killings were continuing?

William Hague: There are several parts to the answer to that question. First, the Cabinet Secretary has said that there is no evidence in the documents, even after that
	point, of any British involvement in subsequent military operations in the Punjab. That goes beyond June 1984. It is also clear in the letter from Mrs Gandhi that there is no reference, for instance, to thanking the UK for any participation, support or advice. From everything that we have seen, and having read the report, I do not think there would be much to add to what the Cabinet Secretary has already said.

Peter Tapsell: May I add to the answer to the spontaneous question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? It is difficult for the present generation to realise how close our relationships with India still were at that time. My father and grandfather were both born in India, and I knew Indira Gandhi very well. I visited her a fortnight before she was assassinated at her home, after the Golden Temple disaster, and asked her whether she was wise to be surrounded by the Sikh bodyguard, who looked magnificent in their uniforms. She said that they were absolutely loyal to her, that some of them had served her father, and that if she were to get rid of them it would be regarded throughout India as an insult to the other Sikhs. There was nothing sinister at all about Britain, and many Brits at various levels, being asked for advice during that terrible period.

William Hague: There was a remarkable prescience in my right hon. Friend’s questions to Mrs Gandhi at that time. As always, we are not in the least bit surprised to find that he knew her, and indeed knew several generations of the Gandhi family. He is right to put the matter in that historical context. The requests for British advice, however they were then responded to, should be seen in that light.

John McDonnell: The Foreign Secretary spoke of reassurance. I do not believe that members of the Sikh community in my area will be reassured by the fact that a UK Government were willing to provide any military support to desecrate the most holy place on this earth, or by the fact that there was no semblance of an apology today. Nor do I believe they will be reassured by files going missing, or by the fact that this was an internal inquiry. May I urge him to move swiftly for a full public and independent inquiry?

William Hague: No, and I think the facts have been set out clearly by the Cabinet Secretary, a respected official and the most senior civil servant in the country, who has served Governments of all parties in a non-partisan way. These are sensitive matters, and everyone should be careful about how they phrase things. To say that the UK gave military support to desecrate the temple is obviously a wild distortion of events, and the hon. Gentleman should regret that.

Rob Wilson: Unlike the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), may I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for his statement and welcome the reassurance that it gives the UK Sikh community about these events? However, many Sikhs in my constituency not only have questions about Operation Blue Star but have wider questions about what happened in India in 1984. Most of the answers will lie in India, but will he commit to a
	full disclosure of any information that the Government hold about the custody, interrogation, torture, disappearance and murder of thousands of Sikhs during that period?

William Hague: My hon. Friend draws attention to wider events, which others have also referred to, which caused enormous distress to the Sikh community and in which many people suffered. It is entirely understandable that people should raise those events, although they were predominantly within India and we are not able to inquire into the Indian Government’s actions. The investigation is about any question of UK involvement in one particular set of events. As I mentioned earlier, over the next few years more Government documents will be released. The Cabinet Secretary has examined the ones relating to the specific events in question, but other documents about relations between the UK and India will be released, and we will of course ensure that they are released promptly and transparently.

Liz Kendall: The Sikh community in Leicester has expressed to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), who unfortunately cannot be here today, its deep concerns about the attack on the Golden Temple and the wider events of 1984. Is the Foreign Secretary confident that all the documents have been properly investigated and that the Government are publishing as many of them as possible? In this day and age, when trust in politicians and institutions is so low, I believe people want to judge for themselves.

William Hague: That is a very good point and a fair question. This investigation is not by Ministers but has been presented by the Cabinet Secretary to the Prime Minister, and we should have confidence in that. It has involved going through a huge number of documents, and the publication of additional documents that would not normally be released, and those things should be helpful in providing the necessary assurances to people. On top of that, as I announced in my statement, there will be a review of how we release documents, to ensure that all Departments are living up to their responsibilities and doing so in a uniform way, and that includes looking at the processes for withholding information. I hope that all that, and the fact that we are moving from a 30-year rule to a 20-year rule, will fortify or produce some public confidence in the transparency of the processes.

Mark Pritchard: The events of 1984 were tragic and still impact on the lives of many Sikh families in my constituency. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be a disservice to the victims and their families if some Members of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition made this a party political issue, rather than a pursuit of truth, transparency and closure for those families?

William Hague: Of course I agree with that, but I am not accusing anybody in the House of doing anything other than seeking the truth about these matters, and it is important we do that across parties. Procedures for the release of documents have been established across parties and different Governments over a long period of time, and I hope that if we improve and change those procedures,
	that will also command cross-party consensus. Let us hope that Members across the House will always approach the issue in that spirit.

Pat McFadden: The core fact exposed by the release of documents a few weeks ago and in the Foreign Secretary’s statement today is that advice was given by this country in the run-up to an attack on the holiest place in Sikhism. Given that fact, and given the tremendous pain and grief over the broader events of 1984 in India, does the Foreign Secretary understand that there will be calls in the community for an apology or gesture of reconciliation from the Government, and will he give the House his response to those calls? What can the Government do internationally to get to the full truth of this matter, because the British Sikh community feels that that full truth has never been told?

William Hague: There are several parts to the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I think the report should be acknowledged, even by those who criticise it, as a big step in establishing the truth about many matters. It is clear and covers many documents, and is a thorough piece of work by the Cabinet Secretary. It is important for us to support all processes of reconciliation, and to do so through the dialogue with the Sikh community which I am sure the Government will continue, as, I hope, will all political parties in this country. When it comes to judging these past events for ourselves, if I or any of us thought that this country had at any time materially contributed to unnecessary loss of life, it would be something that we should say was a mistake, for which the country should apologise. That case cannot be made for these documents, however, and we must respect what they say.

Heather Wheeler: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. It is a wounding time for many of my constituents, who have contacted me, and I appreciate the candour that he has displayed at the Dispatch Box today. Together, I am sure, with many other hon. Members, I would like to gather these now public documents and get them back to our constituents so that they may see for themselves. I congratulate the whole team on putting this package together. It will help calm matters down.

William Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and as I said earlier, I hope people will read the report and documents, and see for themselves that the Government are being as transparent as possible about this matter and that there is information for people to read and digest.

William McCrea: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. While accepting that nothing we can say or do can undo the tragic loss of life and hurt felt within the Sikh community—we in Northern Ireland know about such things over 30 years—is the Foreign Secretary certain that the Cabinet Secretary’s report and examination of all issues surrounding the Indian operation has been thorough, rigorous and factually correct, and that there has not been, nor will there be, any cover up of the facts?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that nothing any of us can do or say makes up for what so many people experienced during those events, and we must understand that. It is important that we set out what happened as we understand it as clearly and transparently as possible, and I can give a clear yes to the whole of his question.

Adam Holloway: As a former Army officer who represents a constituency with a large number of Sikhs, I thank the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for the serious and rigorous way they have approached this issue. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that had the distinguished SAS Major’s advice been taken, there would have been a much lower level of violence? Indeed, if that advice had been taken in full, there would have been no violence at all, rather than the—to my mind—appalling behaviour of the Indian Government in the assault in Operation Metal, and the weeks and months that followed. We must remember that, for the victims of that, justice remains in very short supply.

William Hague: Of course, we can never know for sure what would have happened under different circumstances or a different plan. It is clear from the Cabinet Secretary’s report that the UK military adviser gave advice about using negotiations and using force only as a last resort, and the military advice he gave was partly based on the desire to reduce casualties all round. It is important that those points are fully brought out and understood, as my hon. Friend suggests.

Fabian Hamilton: As chair of the all-party group for British Sikhs, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) for bringing this matter to light in the first place. I also thank the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for their swift and transparent report. Does the Foreign Secretary agree, however, that the knowledge of even one military adviser going over in February 1984 will cause anger and hurt to the British Sikh community? Will he consider the possibility of a further report into the consequences of the attack on the Sri Harmandir Sahib?

William Hague: I understand how any of the matters that we are discussing can cause worry, speculation and suspicion, and we must be as transparent as possible about such things. The hon. Gentleman asks about a further report, but it is important to remember that we can only investigate and inquire into what we or our predecessors were responsible for. The Cabinet Secretary’s report makes clear that there is no evidence in the documents of any subsequent British military involvement in any military operations in the Punjab. There are many other wider issues and controversies that understandably cause people great distress to this day, but they are predominantly matters under Indian sovereignty, and part of the Indian people’s responsibility for their own affairs. There is a limit to how much the United Kingdom can inquire into those things.

Richard Fuller: In his question, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) rightly placed these issues in the context, for many
	British Sikhs, of a search for justice and truth about the atrocities in 1984. In the consultation his colleagues will undertake with Sikh organisations and others, will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will listen to the wider issues and that he will go beyond the national organisations to listen to local organisations, too?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. It must be part of our discussions to be open to discussing these wider issues. Every opportunity should be taken to discuss matters with local groups, too. As Ministers travel around the country, they will be pleased to do so.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Coventry has a relatively large and very successful Sikh community. He will also probably know that for the past 30 years, since the incident happened, I have been lobbied in this House repeatedly by the Sikh community. We had hoped that his statement today would bring closure, but I fear it will not. One of the problems is the military files that have been destroyed and much of what I have received from the Sikh community recently has been on that point. His statement today said that that “included one file on the provision of military advice to the Indian authorities on their contingency plans”. Only some of those other destroyed military documents have been found in other files—only some. Can he reassure the House that the bulk of the destroyed files did not relate to the critical period of February and June, and then immediately after June?

William Hague: As set out in my statement, there was the destruction by the Ministry of Defence of one file in 2009, but it has turned out that some of the documents that would have been in it are in other files around the rest of Government. The reassuring thing, I think, is that all of the documents show a consistent picture. There is not, in the Cabinet Secretary’s analysis of these documents, something that remains unexplained. It is a consistent picture: of the one visit in February 1984 by one military adviser; of no decision by the British Government to give any further assistance beyond that, either in nature or in time; and of the actual operation in June 1984 being very different from the advice given by that one UK military adviser. All the documents are consistent with that in every Department across the whole of Government in all 200 files. So, when we think about it in that way, it is a consistent picture and it should be reassuring.

Stephen Phillips: May I commend my right hon. Friend on a very frank statement? I am afraid that I must press him on one point. During the statement, he said that “the adviser’s assessment made it clear that a military operation should be put into effect only as a last resort when all attempts at negotiation had failed.” It is therefore clear that there was an assessment in February 1984 of the potential military operation. One thing that causes such hurt to the Sikh community across the world was the use of artillery, both at one of the holiest sites in Sikhism and in the wider region. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that no British adviser, either this one or anyone else, ever gave advice that artillery should be used, and that, insofar as any advice was given, it was that a military solution was not the right way forward?

William Hague: I think I can be reassuring on that point. The advice was that military solutions—I think British military advisers would give this advice anywhere in the world—are only for when all negotiations have failed. It also referred specifically to the importance of speed and surprise, and to the use of helicopter-borne troops to achieve that and minimise casualties. That would not be consistent with the use of artillery, with all the consequent collateral damage and destruction caused by the use of heavy weapons.

Mike Gapes: Those of us who have had the honour to visit the Golden Temple know that it is a place of peace and tranquillity, and that its symbolism is very significant. When the Prime Minister went to India, he visited Amritsar. He also went to Jallianwala Bagh and signed a message of condolence relating to an atrocity carried out by the British military in 1919. Would it not be appropriate for us to say something about apologising for the fact that there was minor, limited complicity in giving military advice to the Indian authorities, because otherwise it will be misinterpreted? The Prime Minister did the right thing when he went to India. Can we do something now for the Sikh community?

William Hague: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Prime Minister did the right thing in making that statement on other tragic events near Amritsar decades before and in expressing this country’s regret for that. That was absolutely the right thing and I think across the whole House we support that. He did that because of Britain’s responsibility for those events. Apologies go with responsibility and imply a responsibility. As I said earlier, if any of us thought that any British assistance had contributed to unnecessary loss of life and to suffering in this case, or in any other case, we would all want to say that that was a mistake and for the country to make an apology. But that is not what is established by the Cabinet Secretary’s report. The picture is very different from that, and we all have to base our opinions, in the end, on the facts.

Chris White: My constituency is also home to a large Sikh community, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the huge contribution they make to local and national life. I am pleased that the Government have investigated these issues so promptly. However, may I ask the Foreign Secretary what further steps he will take to reassure our Sikh community that this investigation has indeed been fully transparent and comprehensive?

William Hague: It is important to explain the investigation, and that is what I am doing today. I am sure that my hon. Friend will encourage his constituents to read the report. It is not a report just for Parliament to read; it is a report for the public to read. It is published on the Government’s website and it is easy for Members of Parliament to make copies available. People will be able to make judgments for themselves on its transparency and on how much reassurance to take from it. I hope they will be reassured that in this country we do look into such documents and respond to demands for investigations. We asked the highest ranking civil servant in the country to lead those investigations. We ensured that officials from 30 years ago were interviewed and that tens of thousands of documents were examined.
	There are not many countries in the world that have that level of transparency relating to events in the past, let alone in the present. We should say that those are good attributes of our country, and that they are good examples of how we face up to issues from the past.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I take the Foreign Secretary back to the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson)? On page 2 of his report, he rather glibly says that under a 25-year procedure a lot of Ministry of Defence files were destroyed. This issue is not new and concerns have been expressed ever since 1984. Therefore, what was going through the minds of people in the MOD when they destroyed those files? Only some of them have been discovered in parallel files kept in other Departments. Why, at no stage in 1984, did any Minister feel fit to tell the House of Commons that a British military adviser had been sent to India? I was a Member of the House at that time and no such reference was ever made, so it was unlikely that any question would have been raised.

William Hague: It is hard to judge—1984 was a few years before I was a Member of this House—why questions were not asked and statements not given. I do not think that we can go back and judge that now. The hon. Gentleman said that I had said glibly in the report that the file was destroyed, but it is the Cabinet Secretary’s report, not my report. The Cabinet Secretary is reporting the fact, which is that the MOD destroyed that file in 2009. It is not for me to explain that. That happened under the previous Administration and was carried out by an official; it was not a political or ministerial decision. It raises a sufficient question such that, in the review I announced today, we have to look at such rules and how these things are carried out. That is part of what Sir Alex Allan will examine.

Mark Spencer: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), will the Foreign Secretary do all he can to continue building links with the Punjab, both politically and economically, and encourage his colleagues across Government to recognise the enormous contribution that the British Sikh population make economically and socially?

William Hague: As our discussion today reminds us, the importance of that contribution is understood across all parties in the House. Sikhs in Britain make an enormous contribution to this country, as is widely recognised in our national life, and it is something we want to continue and see flourish in the future. In our minds in this House, none of these controversies detracts from the importance of that contribution, and nor should they ever.

Emma Reynolds: There is real concern, distress and grief among the Sikh community in my constituency over the horrific events in June 1984. The correspondence released last month indicated that the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Howe, agreed to advise the Indian Government, and the Foreign Secretary has confirmed that today. While my Sikh constituents were shocked that that advice was given, they are also seeking further clarity about the contact
	between the British and Indian Governments at the time. With that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary commit to disclose the full transcript of the Cabinet Secretary’s interview with Lord Howe?

William Hague: The Cabinet Secretary decided what to disclose in his report, and that included additional documents that would not normally be disclosed and which gave additional details confirming the picture set out in his report and my statement. While preparing the report, he and his officials had discussions with officials and senior Ministers, and it was for him to set out to the Prime Minister, as he did in his report, what he recommended for publication. I think that that provides a full, transparent picture, and that he made the right judgment in what he said.

Robert Buckland: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Sikhs in the community I have the honour to represent still feel that the scars and wounds left by the events of 1984 run deep and remain open, so the need for transparency is patently clear. On the nature of the advice given, was this a unique set of circumstances with regard to India, or are there examples of other countries seeking military advice of the type sought in this case?

William Hague: It seems to have been unique in the context of operations in the Punjab—this is the only such occurrence the Cabinet Secretary has discovered—but globally there will, of course, have been many other occasions in the 1980s when Governments of other countries asked the United Kingdom for military advice, and occasionally Ministers have to deal with that today, so it is not unusual for a foreign country with friendly relations with the UK to ask for military advice.

Mark Durkan: According to the Heywood report, the recommendation and decision to agree to the request were based on advice from the British high commission that it would be good for the bilateral relationship, whereas refusal would not be understood by the Indian Prime Minister. However, the report does not tell us—perhaps the Foreign Secretary can—whether the high commission’s recommendation gave consideration to the special sensitivity and sacredness of the Golden Temple site or whether the British Government’s decision to accept the advice gave consideration to the special status of the site?

William Hague: Further documents, which the hon. Gentleman can study, have been published and attached to the report, and that is the information we have on the motivations and decisions of Ministers and diplomats at the time. Everyone can read the documents for themselves. It is evident from the UK military adviser’s report that he advised that military action in this—and presumably in any other—context should be taken only if negotiations failed. I imagine people would have been conscious of the great significance of the site and the delicacy of the situation, but we can only go for sure on the documents that are there and what they say, and he can read them like the rest of us.

Michael Ellis: I commend the Foreign Secretary and Cabinet Secretary for a job—and a neutral job—well done. Like the Father of House, my
	father was born in India. In the constituency I have the honour to represent, there is a large Sikh community. I have visited the gurdwaras, and I have spoken to members of the community and answered their questions where I can. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that UK bilateral relations with India and many other countries around the world mean that, as in the past, we are regularly asked for assistance and bilateral advice by other countries, especially those dealing with difficult situations, and that we afford such assistance where we can?

William Hague: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), over the decades we have been asked for military assistance and advice. It is not always possible to discuss specific instances on the Floor of the House, but when we receive such requests and decide to give assistance, this being the 21st century, we apply high standards of human rights considerations and of course always try to minimise loss of life, but it is not uncommon for us to receive such requests.

Chris Williamson: When these documents came to light, there was a palpable sense of betrayal, anger and incredulity within the Sikh community in my constituency. It is clear from today that many questions remain unanswered, and the Foreign Secretary has conceded that some documents were destroyed. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), he ruled out an independent inquiry, but would he not at least accept that an independent, judge-led inquiry would allay any suspicions of a cover-up, allow former Ministers to give evidence in full and enable us to determine whether a full apology would be appropriate?

William Hague: I encourage the hon. Gentleman to read the report, because I do not think it is possible to read it and conclude that a cover-up has taken place. It is the very opposite of that: the most senior civil servant in the country has considered the matter in a dispassionate and non-partisan way; he has been as open as possible with documents; and he has shown that all the evidence and documents paint a consistent picture. In those circumstances, it is not possible to justify additional inquiries piled on top of inquiries. People might be interested in other, related issues beyond the scope of the investigation—it is wholly legitimate for them to pursue them—but on the nature of British involvement in the events leading up to June 1984, I think the Cabinet Secretary’s report gives a clear answer.

Peter Bone: I think that most Members would thank the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the speed of the inquiry and the latter for making such a full statement. I am surprised to learn, however, that Government files are routinely destroyed after 25 years—five years before they would otherwise be released under the 30-year rule. Was the Foreign Secretary as surprised as me by that? Furthermore, if we move to a 20-year rule, will the 25-year rule remain in place, meaning that all files will be available for publication?

William Hague: The interaction between the move from a 30-year rule to a 20-year rule and the way Departments treat their files after 25 years raise interesting questions,
	as it would make the 25-year rule rather a moot point. That is why there is value in the further review I have announced today to ensure consistency across all Departments and to ensure that lessons that need to be learned from when documents have been withheld or published can be learned collectively across the whole of Government. I encourage my hon. Friend to await the outcome of that review for a definitive answer to his question.

Barry Gardiner: The Foreign Secretary has been at pains to stress that the advice given by the British military adviser was not, in fact, followed and that it would therefore be inappropriate to take responsibility for Operation Blue Star and to issue an apology for it. None the less, it was countenanced to give advice; indeed, advice was given about how to storm the holiest site in Sikhism. Is that not something that the Foreign Secretary should apologise for?

William Hague: I go back to my earlier answers. I think it is fair to put it this way. If any of us, in any part of the House, thought that Britain had contributed to serious or unnecessary loss of life elsewhere in the world, it would be right to acknowledge a mistake and to say that the country apologises for that, but when the country clearly does not have responsibility for it, that is a different context. We have to go on the facts, and I think the facts are clear. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is really asking us to judge to a finer degree the decisions of Ministers at the time, which I feel, 30 years later and in a different Government, is very hard to do and could be unfair. I therefore stick to what I said earlier on this.

Philip Hollobone: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, which I am confident will be very reassuring to the long-established and highly respected Sikh community in Kettering. None of us should ever forget that 83,000 Sikhs gave their lives in both world wars for His Majesty’s armed forces.
	Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is important not to put two and two together and make five? Will he confirm the rank of the military adviser? Does he also agree that the Iranian hostage siege operation and the raid on the Golden Temple in Amritsar were completely different exercises? The Iranian hostage siege operation was a precise, surgical military engagement involving a small number of armed soldiers and a small number of hostages, and was remarkably successful. The raid on the Golden Temple involved artillery, main battle tanks, helicopter gunships and the execution of prisoners. It is completely inconceivable that Her Majesty’s Government would send any military adviser to another Government to recommend an assault of that kind.

William Hague: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. It has been the culture of the British armed forces for a long time to avoid, wherever possible, civilian loss of life and to minimise casualties in any operations, or anything similar to them, such as those to which he referred. There is therefore a very big
	distinction between those two operations; he is absolutely right about that. I will not give any information that identifies the officer concerned. My hon. Friend is quite right to refer to the huge contribution of Sikhs—indeed, of Indians, Sikh and non-Sikh—in the world wars. We owe a great deal to them, and we must remember that on many occasions over the coming years, on the centenaries of the main events of the first world war.

Jim Cunningham: Given the contribution that the Sikh community has made—not only in Coventry, but nationally and internationally, and, more importantly, economically to this country and in two world wars—at the very least we owe those in that community an inquiry. This investigation is a step in the right direction, but we should have an inquiry. More importantly, will the Foreign Secretary say what the Cabinet knew? Did the Cabinet take the decision to send the adviser? Who consulted the Cabinet?

William Hague: It is clear from the documents that are published that this was a decision of the Foreign and Defence Secretaries at the time, in consultation with the Prime Minister. That was how the decision was taken. On the subject of inquiries, these are the documents and the facts, as set out in the Cabinet Secretary’s report. There is nothing in that report or in those documents to suggest that some form of inquiry would find any different information or come to any different conclusion.

Adrian Bailey: Many Sikhs in my constituency are concerned not just about the detail and nature of the advice given, but about the principle that the British Government were prepared to advise another Government on an attack upon a holy shrine. If we are to get reconciliation, would the Foreign Secretary not be prepared to concede, first, that at least it was an error of judgment by the then Government and that an apology is justified, and, secondly, that there must be procedures in place to prevent any such repetition in future?

William Hague: Thankfully there are no parallel situations that we are dealing with in the world today. We do receive requests—now, in the 21st century—for military advice or co-operation. As I mentioned earlier, in responding to those we are extremely conscious of all considerations of human rights and avoiding loss of life. These are paramount factors in how the British Government, as we practise our policies today, evaluate requests for assistance from other countries, whether through their militaries or any other agencies. These policies have taken shape over the years, and it is very hard to speculate about exactly what considerations were in the minds of Ministers 30 years ago.
	On the question of 30 years ago, all we can do is be as open and transparent as possible and let people evaluate the facts for themselves. It would not be unusual or unknown, as I said, for foreign Governments to ask for military advice. What is clear from this case is that the military advice that was given was designed to minimise casualties and to stress that military action should take place only if all negotiations had failed.

Flooding Prevention for New Developments

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Mark Spencer: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to require Highways Authorities to include flooding prevention schemes in the development of new road constructions; and for connected purposes.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to present this ten-minute rule Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware of how high a profile flooding has in the news at the moment. Sadly for many residents in Sherwood, this is not a recent problem, but something they have lived with for a very long time. Many of the villages of Nottinghamshire are built around settlements dating back to Saxon times located next to a small stream as a source of fresh water. They have evolved and grown for hundreds of years. For many of them, the discovery of coal meant their growth was quite rapid in the 20th century.
	Sadly, the drainage systems of those villages have not grown at the same rate, and further developments upstream have added to the problem of drainage. Those villages are today faced with sewage systems that are already under enormous pressure and have a high risk of flooding during periods of prolonged or heavy rainfall. That is because there are often no top water drainage systems in place, and run-off from roofs, driveways and highways is left to flood the highway or enter the village stream or, even worse, is directed into the foul water system. My Bill, should it be successful, seeks to prevent any further pressure on these already over-stretched drainage systems.
	Currently, water companies are placed under an obligation to connect any new development to an existing sewage system, even if this system has flooded in the recent past. It is the water company and its customers who bear the costs of any improvements required, not the developer, who may be building a large number of houses further upstream. My Bill would do two things in those circumstances. First, it would ensure that the developer was obliged to pay for any proportionate improvement required in the foul water system. Secondly, my Bill would ensure that any top water must be dealt with via a purpose-built top water system and not increase water flows downstream during high rainfall events.
	That would also apply where a new road development was taking place. Any new highway being built would have to include its own surface water drainage system that did not add increased volumes of water during high rainfall events. Such action would be entirely achievable with the use of balancing ponds, and would not dramatically increase costs, as the new systems would be put in while the diggers were on the ground. There are a number of instances in which that has already been done, but, sadly, it does not appear to be happening in a number of instances in Sherwood.
	Nottinghamshire county council is currently planning the development of the Hucknall inner relief road. I shall not be discussing the merits of that today, but the proposed route runs though an area of Hucknall around
	Thoresby Dale, where there is already extensive flooding, and the current plans do nothing to improve the plight of residents in the area. The solution seems quite simple to me. The council is about to spend more than £15 million on the road; laying a purpose-built top-water drainage system below the road, while the diggers are there in any event, would involve very little additional cost, and would be of massive benefit to people in the area.
	My second example relates to the village of Farnsfield, whose predicament, sadly, is not unusual. The village has suffered a number of flash-flooding events over the past five years, which have usually culminated in an overflow of the foul water systems which has left several householders with raw sewage in their gardens, garages and homes. Newark and Sherwood district council is currently considering a substantial development on the edge of the village, upstream of the flooding properties, and that can only make the problem worse unless substantial mitigation measures are introduced. My Bill would ensure that the developer was legally obliged to do that, and would hold the highway authority responsible for ensuring that it was done during the planning process.
	The Bill is not retrospective, so it will not solve the existing problems, but it will help to prevent them from being made worse in future. While I am realistic about its chances of success, I nevertheless hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—who is present—has listened to my comments. There may still be a further opportunity to amend the Water Bill, which is currently in the House of Lords.
	I commend my Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Mark Spencer, Heather Wheeler, Angie Bray, Robert Halfon and Karl McCartney present the Bill.
	Mr Mark Spencer accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 167).

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, CRIME AND POLICING BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 10 June 2013 (Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (Programme)) and 14 October 2013 (Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Lords Amendment No. 112; Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 111; Lords Amendments Nos. 113 to 180.
	Subsequent stages
	(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Damian Green.)
	Question agreed to.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Eleanor Laing: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendment 89. If the House agrees to the amendment, I shall cause the appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

Clause 151
	 — 
	Compensation for miscarriages of justice

Damian Green: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 112.

Eleanor Laing: With this is will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 112.

Damian Green: I should add that I wish the House to agree to amendment (a).
	Clause 151 defines what amounts to a “miscarriage of justice” for the purposes of compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. There has been much debate about the clause, both here and in the House of Lords, and I am indebted to all who have contributed to examining this important issue. The Government have taken account of all the points that have been made and all the concerns that have been expressed, and our position has changed as a result of the very good debates that have taken place in Committee here as well as in the House of Lords.
	I was pleased to note that Members of both Houses and members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed with us that that the current definition set out by the divisional court in the case of Ali was not clear enough, that we needed to legislate for a clear definition of a miscarriage of justice given the ongoing uncertainty and reinterpretation of definitions by the courts, and that our aim was not to seek to restrict compensation, but to provide clarity. The question that remains before us is how it can be determined whether someone has suffered a miscarriage of justice.
	This is indeed a complex issue. When a case is properly brought to court—that is, when there is evidence of a crime on which it is right to ask a jury to adjudicate—there is no miscarriage of justice when the result of the trial is an acquittal, or even in very many of the cases in which a guilty verdict is later quashed as unsafe. The Government believe that a miscarriage of justice arises only when there is in existence a fact which entirely exonerates the accused: in other words, a fact which makes it unquestionable that the accused did not commit the crime. In such cases, it is only the ignorance of this fact that allowed the accused to be convicted in the first place. What we are seeking to define is something far more than merely a failure in the investigative or trial processes. We are seeking to define a clear miscarriage of justice which is—and, in our view, can only be—the wrongful conviction of the innocent.
	Our aim is to create an unambiguous statutory description of such a situation for the purposes of compensation. The fact that the definition inserted in the Bill by Lords amendment 112 is open to various interpretations is obvious from the significant number of judicial review cases awaiting consideration by the administrative court—13 at present—in which the aim is to challenge the Secretary of State’s application of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Adams. That number excludes the three cases that are awaiting judgment from the challenge to the divisional court’s decision in respect of R v. Abdulla Ahmed Ali and others, which was heard by the Court of Appeal last December. A test similar to the “Adams test”—the definition that is at the heart of all these cases—is the test that is now being proposed in Lords amendment 112.
	It is vitally important for us to ensure that the definition that is introduced into statute for the first time is “fit for purpose”. It must be clear and robust enough to avoid the need for further judicial interpretation, and, as far as possible, to limit the scope for argument about what will amount to a miscarriage of justice. The amendment that we propose would leave applicants in no doubt: if the new fact that led to their conviction being quashed showed that they did not commit the offence—for example, if it were shown that they had been somewhere else at the time, if someone else was proved to be the perpetrator, or if the courts acknowledged that no offence had in fact been committed—they would have suffered a miscarriage of justice, and would be likely to be compensated.

Julian Huppert: Will the Minister explain to those of us who are not lawyers what the difference is between the Government’s original wording and the wording of the amendment that they are now proposing?

Damian Green: I join my hon. Friend in that state of grace of not being a lawyer. The difference is that we have removed the word “innocent”. There was, I think, a feeling that the original Government proposal required people to prove their innocence, which, of course, would alter the presumptions that lie at the heart of the criminal justice system. That is what could be described as the non-legal significant difference, which is none the less a significant difference.

John McDonnell: Will the Minister therefore explain to us what the difference is between “innocent of” and “did not commit”?

Damian Green: A lot of the debate was about the nomenclature—the thought that we were asking people to prove their innocence. I have just explained the effect of the new clause: if a new fact emerges that on its own shows the person could not have committed the offence or that an offence may not have been committed, that would entitle that person to compensation. Throughout this debate people have recognised that it is not simply a question of being declared innocent that requires a miscarriage of justice to be called.

Mark Durkan: Further to that point, will the Minister explain how it would be different for someone to prove they did not commit an offence, as
	opposed to someone being expected to prove their innocence? What is the difference in terms of the burden of proof?

Damian Green: The point is that nobody has to prove that they are innocent. We are not requiring them to do that. There requires there to be evidence that shows that they could not have committed the offence because they were someone else, for example, or because there is new DNA evidence or the offence has not been committed. That is the material difference between the two.

Hywel Williams: Will the Minister concede that that puts the burden of proof squarely on the defendant, however? They will have to do what is virtually impossible: prove a negative, and perhaps many years after the alleged offence took place.

Damian Green: No, I do not accept that because what would trigger the compensation claim would be the new evidence showing they could not have committed the offence. Something has to happen. Some new evidence has to be brought forward, so it is not simply a situation of the case being redefined.

Jeremy Corbyn: If an innocent bystander is watching this debate today and the Minister is saying they have to prove they did not commit an offence, it sounds awfully like they have to prove their own innocence, which of course is anathema to our legal system. Why is he so keen on this new version?

Damian Green: I am keen on this new version and consider it to be an improvement on the original version precisely because it does not require anyone to prove they are innocent, and it provides as unambiguous a wording as we can find to ensure we do not have years of judicial interpretation to come.

David Davis: I assure the Minister I have not risen to intervene to ensure he takes an intervention from every other Member in the Chamber. Can he give me an example of a case that would not pass one filter but would pass the other filter, because I cannot think of one?

Damian Green: It would not be helpful to go into individual cases. I have given some examples of what requirements need to be shown for an applicant to receive compensation. What is required is that there must be a new fact that demonstrates that the applicant did not commit the crime. A Court of Appeal judgment that led to the quashing of an applicant’s conviction would have to show what the reasons were. Although I cannot give individual examples, I can tell my right hon. Friend that the reason could be new DNA evidence or compelling new medical evidence, or compelling new alibi evidence that shows the applicant was somewhere else at the time.
	To address what lies behind a lot of the unease, let me say that it is fundamentally important to remember that we are legislating here for a compensation scheme that is based on specific eligibility requirements. These are designed to meet our international obligations which only require payment in exceptional cases. The Government believe this clause achieves that.
	Everyone has been asking, “What’s the difference between the original clause and this clause?” Of course the substance is not different. However, we recognise that in this area language is very important, and precisely because of the emotion that surrounds the word “innocent”, there is a case for reviewing the reference to that word which has been so controversial, and that is what we have done. We have removed that word, which I hope adds to the clarity and lack of ambiguity.

John McDonnell: I think I understand where the Minister is coming from, but I just think we are getting ourselves into a bit of a mess here. Let me give him a concrete example. I chaired the Guildford Four campaign for a large number of years. What happened there was the discovery that the confessions were completely wrong. They were wrong for all sorts of different reasons—the circumstances in which they were taken, the way they were taken. They were just false. At that stage it is then demonstrated that the prosecution—and the original decision of the courts—is unsound and it is then dismissed. Those people are then released. They will then have to seek to prove their innocence to gain any compensation, so practically I think we are digging ourselves into a hole here and are creating a system that will cause more problems than those we are seeking to solve.

Damian Green: I disagree. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying the system will in some ways be more difficult because people will have to apply for compensation. That in itself is not a huge change.

John McDonnell: May I explain my point again? Let us take the Birmingham Six as our example. As soon as the confessions were seen to be completely false, they were released on the basis that their prosecution was unsound. However, to gain compensation they will now have to go out and prove they “did not commit” or they were “innocent”, whichever terminology is decided on.

Damian Green: I think this is just a genuine misunderstanding. Someone will be eligible for compensation if the new fact—the hon. Gentleman is talking about new facts emerging in respect of confessions and so on—which led to the quashing of their conviction shows they did not commit the offence for which they were convicted. I think the particular objection he is giving rise to now would not apply, therefore.

John McDonnell: rose—

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman has had a go.

David Burrowes: rose—

Damian Green: I give way to my hon. Friend.

David Burrowes: I must declare an interest as a lawyer. Returning to the amendment, these matters must be dealt with on a proper evidential basis. It has never been the remit of a court or Minister to pronounce on innocence. The issue is dealing with the question of whether an offence has been committed. That is what any jury or tribunal considers on the basis of the evidence. It is therefore important to look at the test for
	compensation on an evidential basis, which plainly is whether an offence has been committed. If we get into the territory of pronouncing on innocence, the situation becomes harder and more ambiguous. The amendment in lieu makes it much more concrete. This is a fair and just test and that is why the amendment in lieu is welcome.

Damian Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing his legal mind to bear on this, and explaining the difference.

John McDonnell: rose—

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman may disagree, but he will have his chance to contribute to the debate.
	We are seeking to provide greater clarity, which is why we are unwilling to accept the Lords amendment. We have listened to those who consider that the express reference to the concept of innocence is problematic. That is what lies at the heart of this change. Our amendment in lieu is intended to take this concern into account by removing what has been until now the controversial aspect of this clause: the use of the word “innocent”. I hope that removing the express reference to innocence will make our respect for the presumption of innocence clear, and I hope I can allay the concerns expressed by hon. Members.
	We remain strongly committed to ensuring that compensation is paid only to those who genuinely warrant it, however. In our view compensation should be paid only to applicants where it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence. We believe that this change takes into account the points made in the House of Lords, which we have carefully considered. As Lord Phillips said in that debate, the primary objective of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which this clause would amend, is to provide redress to an applicant who has been convicted when he or she was in fact innocent. He also considered that its second and subsidiary objective was to ensure that an applicant whose conviction had been quashed but who had in fact committed the offence charged should not be compensated. Our proposed test goes a long way towards achieving both of those objectives. We consider that, while the definition of a miscarriage of justice for which we are seeking to legislate is drawn narrowly, it nevertheless provides for a range of circumstances in which compensation should rightly be paid to help people who need to rebuild their lives after suffering great injustices.
	Throughout our debates, much has been said about the views of the European Court of Human Rights on compensation for a miscarriage of justice, and I am again grateful to Lord Phillips, who commented on this so succinctly during the debate on Report in the Lords. He stated:
	“In substance, whatever interpretation is given to miscarriage of justice, something more than quashing a conviction is properly required”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 680.]
	This much can be gleaned from the four most recent decisions of the European Court on this issue. Today, our business is to determine precisely what that “something
	more” is. We believe that the definition we are now providing in our amendment will make it easier for applicants to assess whether they should apply for compensation, and will make decisions on eligibility easier for the applicant to understand and less likely to be the subject of legal challenge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) made clear a moment ago.

Mark Durkan: Surely the Government’s amendment would not make it easier for the applicant to decide. Would not the Lords amendment make it easier to decide?

Damian Green: No; my difference with the Lords amendment is that it would leave applicants less clear about what to do. This would result in a large number of cases backing up in the courts waiting for judges to interpret what Parliament meant by the legislation, just as there are at the moment. The purpose of my proposal today is twofold: first, to meet the reasonable objections that have been raised about the original Government proposal; secondly, to provide greater clarity so that the House can speak with as clear a voice as possible in these difficult areas and not leave the field open to judicial interpretation, which can take a long time and which provides uncertainty for applicants.
	I am aware that, in both Houses, there has been a misconception that applicants would somehow be required to prove that they did not commit the offence before compensation could be considered. I can categorically say that that is not the case. Applicants do not have to prove anything under the existing criteria, and nor would they have to do so in future under this proposal. Applicants need only rely on information that is already available to them as a result of their appeal process.
	The test provided for in the Bill on its introduction was one that Labour was perfectly content to operate while it was in office. I hope that the new definition, which attempts to address the concerns that have been raised, will therefore have the support of the Opposition. I hope that they will now reconsider their position so that the Bill, and the many important measures it contains, can swiftly secure Royal Assent.

Jack Dromey: Justice demands that those who are guilty of serious offences should be held to account and brought before the courts, especially in the case of heinous offences such as the murder of a child or a terrorist outrage of the kind that the city I am proud to represent suffered in 1974, with the appalling Birmingham pub bombings by the Provisional IRA, in which 21 innocent civilians were murdered. The victims of such crimes deserve no less than having the perpetrators brought to justice. Justice also demands that the innocent should not be found guilty, however. When serious miscarriages of justice occur, it is right that the innocent have access to justice and are able to be compensated for them.
	I am proud of the system of jury trial in this country. I fought for many years to defend it, as a member of the executive council of the then National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty. Trial by jury is one of our great British institutions. In the words of the jurist Lord Devlin, each jury is a “mini Parliament”, and trial by jury is
	“the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.
	Juries can get it wrong in certain circumstances, however: when evidence is withheld from or not disclosed to the defence, as in the case of Sally Clark; when new forensic evidence shows that the person charged and convicted was in fact innocent, as in the case of Mary Druhan; or when evidence is extorted as a consequence of outrageous and unacceptable pressure in a police station, or when it is manufactured, as in the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. When we debate the importance of compensation for the victims of miscarriages of justice, it is worth reflecting on each of those sets of circumstances.
	Sally Clark was a practising solicitor. She was traumatised by the sudden death of her child. She was wrongly accused of murdering her child, and went to prison. When she came out, she was a crushed woman, and she died not long afterwards. Mary Druhan was convicted of arson. In a powerful speech in the other place, Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws described how Mary Druhan had served 11 years in prison, and how she had become so institutionalised that when she came out, she was unable to negotiate public transport. She was also traumatised by the tragic suicide of her daughter while she was in prison.
	At a time in our history when the country was reeling from the horror of terrorist violence, what happened to the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four was absolutely wrong. The Birmingham Six were beaten, brutalised and wrongly convicted. They served 16 years in prison. In the case of the Guildford Four, I will never forget when they walked to freedom and Gerry Conlon stood on the steps of the Old Bailey and said that his dad had died in prison. Such serious miscarriages of justice are mercifully rare—there are typically only a couple a year—but it is absolutely right that compensation should be available for the innocent victims who have suffered as a result of them.
	At the very heart of our legal system lies the principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty, and rightly so. It is for that reason that Labour tabled an amendment on Report to ensure that that age-old principle was upheld. I said then, as I do now, that I agreed that the Government were right in principle to include in the Bill a statutory definition of the cases in which compensation should be paid for a miscarriage of justice, in order to secure greater certainty in this area of the law. However, the Government’s proposed changes today seek to redefine the compensation test, limiting it to circumstances in which a
	“new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent of the offence”
	of which he or she was convicted. That seems to fly in the face of the age-old principle. Worse still, the Government’s proposal will lead to the Secretary of State passing judgment on whether or not a person is innocent. Requiring the Secretary of State to perform that role when no court has done so would be to impose a complex and contentious role on Ministers, in cases that are among the most sensitive.
	Far from securing greater certainty in the law, the Government’s proposals seems to be a recipe for complex, expensive and highly acrimonious litigation. The problems that an innocence test would cause in cases like those of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four or Sally Clark
	are troubling, and here I come back to the reference to “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Rehman Chishti: The hon. Gentleman talks about the issue of innocence and the test that is to be applied. Like me, he is aware that Barry George was convicted of the murder of Jill Dando, was then acquitted and then lost his appeal for compensation. What does the hon. Gentleman say about that case?

Jack Dromey: First, the number of people who receive compensation every year is a handful—it is less than the number of fingers on a hand. There is no automatic entitlement to compensation, and each case is considered on its merits. Secondly, I have rightly focused on cases where people are absolutely entitled to receive compensation for the trauma they suffered as a result of being wrongly convicted and spending many years in prison, and I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree on that.

David Burrowes: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the cases he has cited and the appalling years that these people spent, without obtaining justice in the form of compensation. We need to recognise where we agree: there is a consensus in the House on achieving justice for these people. He mentioned the innocence test. Amendment (a) would do away with the language of “innocent” and replace it with a test of “did not commit”. What is the substantive difference between that and the Pannick amendment, which I understand he supports and which also requires that the burden is to prove
	“conclusively that the evidence against the person at trial is so undermined that no conviction could be possibly be based on it”?
	There is still a burden to provide conclusive proof, so what is the substantive difference between it and the “did not commit” test that the Government are now proposing?

Jack Dromey: In English law, someone is innocent until they are proved guilty. Let me contrast the three different formulations. The Lords amendment would mean that the new or newly discovered fact showed
	“conclusively that the evidence against the person at trial is so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it”.
	The Government’s original clause would have required that the fact showed
	“beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent of the offence”.
	Amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment repeats those tell-tale words of “beyond reasonable doubt” and proposes a test that the person “did not commit” the offence. We strongly believe that the formulation from the other place provides a much more appropriate test, and that the amendment in lieu is about making it more difficult for victims of miscarriages of justice like those to whom I have referred to receive compensation. Indeed, two of the Birmingham Six have expressed the view, following legal advice, that they might not have been entitled to compensation under the Government’s proposed changes.

David Burrowes: We are talking about where the burden lies so we are dealing with the difference between a test of “beyond reasonable doubt” and one of proving “conclusively”. This is not about distinguishing “innocence”; the debate was had in the Lords and there has been a
	recognition that we need to have reference to a “did not commit” test. I am trying to work out where we differ on this. Are we differing about whether something should be proved “beyond reasonable doubt” or just be proved “conclusively”? If so, what is the substantive difference between proving “conclusively” and proving “beyond reasonable doubt”?

Jack Dromey: As a lawyer, the hon. Gentleman will know the difference between providing conclusive proof and proving something beyond reasonable doubt. I stress again that the essence of our argument, and that supported by all parties and Cross Benchers in the other place, is that an individual is innocent until proved guilty. We see no good reason why a victim of a miscarriage of justice should suffer a “beyond reasonable doubt” test.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is not the Barry George example one we should think about carefully? He was convicted and spent a lot of time in prison but was later released as “not guilty” of the offence. He was then denied any compensation. Is the amendment in lieu an attempt by the Government to deny people compensation, and thus save money? Or is it a return to the slack days when a large number of people were wrongly convicted? The Criminal Cases Review Commission, which gave evidence last week to the Select Committee on Justice, confirmed that more than 500 people had been released from prison as a result of its intervention—I believe that is the correct figure.

Jack Dromey: There is a widespread view, reflected in the debate in the other place—someone talked about “incredulity”—as to why the Government are introducing such a test. A statutory definition providing greater clarity, particularly in the light of some of the cases that have gone before the courts, is one thing, but making it more difficult for people to receive compensation for serious miscarriages of justice is something altogether different. As the Barry George case shows, very few people are receiving compensation. The fear expressed in the other place is that the Government’s proposals will make it yet more difficult to obtain compensation for a miscarriage of justice.

David Burrowes: We all want clarity, so let me try to understand the difference between “conclusively” and “beyond reasonable doubt”. Are we talking about a balance of probabilities—whether something is more likely than not? Or are we talking about proving something beyond reasonable doubt, so that people are satisfied and sure? Is “conclusively” a balance of probabilities test, a beyond reasonable doubt test or something else? If it is something else, that wording does not provide the clarity we all seek.

Jack Dromey: As an eminent lawyer, the hon. Gentleman will know that “beyond reasonable doubt” has a very clear standing and purpose in our criminal justice system.

David Burrowes: Which is it?

Jack Dromey: We believe it is inappropriate for the test to be pitched so high; a “beyond reasonable doubt” test will make it more difficult for victims of miscarriages of justice to obtain compensation.

David Burrowes: rose—

Jack Dromey: I have given way three times and have been more than happy to do so, but let me continue now.
	For all the reasons I have described, Labour tabled an amendment on Report in this Chamber and then wholeheartedly backed the amendment in the name of Lord Pannick in the other place, which would ensure that compensation should be paid only if the new or newly discovered fact showed conclusively that the evidence against the defendant at trial was so undermined that
	“ no conviction could possibly be based on it.”
	That clearly provides a statutory definition and greater certainty in this area of the law, while adhering to the age-old principle for which I have argued so strongly. When the Court of Appeal has quashed a conviction, it is simply wrong then to require the defendant also to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he or she is, to all intents and purposes, innocent. Such a provision is incompatible with the presumption of innocence.
	The framework for which I am arguing already applies in the Supreme Court, where it was brought in by the then President, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, who strongly supported the Pannick amendment in the other place, and indeed in the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said:
	“in our view requiring proof of innocence beyond reasonable doubt as a condition of obtaining compensation for wrongful conviction is incompatible with the presumption of innocence which is protected by both the common law and Article 6(2) ECHR.”
	It is worth stressing again that the amendment from the other place is not about giving people more compensation automatically or making it easier for people to get off on technicalities and then to claim compensation in all circumstances; it is about serious and rare cases in which it is entirely appropriate that the victims should receive compensation. As our amendment makes clear, asking people to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt is an affront to our system of law, and denying compensation to those who have been wrongly convicted is an affront to a decent society. Many Members of this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), have campaigned for many years on miscarriages of justice.
	The simple fact is that our legal system is not perfect, and cases do go wrong. It is a tribute to our legal system that miscarriages of justice are rare, but when they do happen, it is simply wrong to expect those who have suffered to prove to all intents and purposes that they are innocent beyond reasonable doubt—it is adding to the injustice that they have already suffered.
	As I argued at the start of my contribution, miscarriages of justice lead to ruined lives. Families are destroyed. People leave while their partners sit wrongly behind bars. Jobs and homes are lost and people’s reputations are left in tatters. The mental despair and anguish are never fully resolved, which is why victims of miscarriages of justice need real help on their release. People’s lives can never go back to how they were. That is where we, as a decent society, have to make amends, and that is what our amendment does.
	In conclusion, I urge all Members of this House to support a rigorous and fair justice system that sticks up for its founding principle of people being innocent until proved guilty; that rejects the notion of “beyond reasonable doubt” to obtain compensation; that ensures that where a serious miscarriage of justice has happened, innocent people receive fair compensation for all they have suffered; and that reflects rulings already set out in the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. In short, we want a justice system that is serious about putting right serious injustice.

John McDonnell: To be frank, I am absolutely confused about where we have got to. I am confused over the difference of interpretation between innocence and “did not commit”. If someone wants to intervene on me at this stage I would be really grateful, because I cannot see the difference.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) has explained the implications of the proposal with regard to the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four. Let me put the situation in context following my involvement in the case of the Guildford Four. A number of people are locked up for many years. When they come out, they have nothing—no accommodation and no employment. The financial compensation they receive is relatively minimal compared with the suffering that they have gone through, and it is desperately needed to ensure that they have a chance of some form of normal life in the future.
	In the case of the Guildford Four—it was the same in the case of the Birmingham Six—we found that not just the prisoners but whole families were devastated. There have been suicides in the family of Paul Hill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) knows, the lives of Errol and Theresa Smalley have been permanently damaged. The whole family network has been damaged as a result of that case. Gerry Conlon admitted it when he came out of prison. He was addicted to drugs, because that was the only way he could cope. The state pays compensation to try to do whatever it can to remedy the injustice that took place.
	The cases of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six went to court and were quashed because the forensic evidence demonstrated that confessions were made under duress and that documents were tampered with. When they left court, it was on the basis that the system had failed in due process to prove that they had committed the crimes for which they were brought to court. We then went through a negotiation process, which was quite bizarre; I did not realise that, under the existing compensation arrangements, their compensation would be reduced to pay for accommodation charges while they were in prison. It was a real struggle to get that compensation. The Minister says that this is not the case, but under the proposed system, if a case is quashed on the basis of that type of evidence, the defendants will have to go to another level of proof to get any compensation. They will have to demonstrate not that the process was faulty in the first place and that they should never have been caught, but that they did not commit the crime, which is having to prove innocence. That is almost impossible, for any of us. Trying to prove that negative is contrary to everything in English law, and practically impossible to do.

Mark Field: rose—

John McDonnell: Let me just finish this point, then I will give way; I welcome the intervention.
	In the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, the media very quickly started to say. “Well, they might have got off, but maybe they did it anyway.” A campaign then started in the gutter press. It did not matter how good the evidence was, they still came at us. They tried to damage the reputations of those individuals. What worries me is that a Secretary of State determining that a higher level of proof is required to gain compensation will affect the atmosphere that is created.

Mark Field: I must admit that I have quite a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He expresses a specific concern about high-profile miscarriages of justice. However, is there not a concern that this new test of a convincing case brings a whole lot more uncertainty into the law? I dare say that it will be an absolute boon for the lawyers as to precisely where that comes into play. Although I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, the benefit of what the Minister is saying is that we at least have a certain test that is already set in English law.

John McDonnell: In my view, the Government’s test is faulty. I am not convinced of the need for this additional test anyway. At least the House of Lords edges towards some greater level of fairness. I would rather give up on this attempt to redefine.
	The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) raised the case of Barry George. There has always been an ability in our system for the court awarding compensation to take into account whether the person contributed towards their plight. That has an effect on compensation levels or even whether compensation is awarded at all. By seeking to arrive at some definition in legislation, we are digging ourselves into a very complicated and costly hole, and that cost will be on the individuals who are desperately trying to ensure that they get some compensation for the ill that they have experienced as a result of the state’s failure to live up to a proper process. Additionally, it will be extremely costly for the state. As a result of the weakness in the definition proposed by the Government, we will see case after case being dragged through the English courts and then the European courts. In trying to remedy some form of perceived ill, we will create greater damage to those who have suffered enough.
	In addition, the process that is under way at the moment risks making a laughing stock of the Government. As we have heard today, there will be arguments over the difference between “do not commit” and innocence, between conclusively and beyond all reasonable doubt. The lawyers will make a fortune. I plead for a common-sense approach. The compensation arrangements at the moment are not absolutely perfect, but at least we have managed to secure some compensation for those cases that have been quashed as a result of the state’s failure, and this is about the state’s failure to act accordingly.
	There are many other cases. Susan May recently passed away, unfortunately, but her case is still being pursued to demonstrate her innocence, and I think that, rather than it being proved in the long run that the
	evidential base was the problem, it will be demonstrated that police processes were not adhered to and it will be another case that is eventually quashed. I hope that the Criminal Cases Review Commission will posthumously provide some proof that she should never have been taken through the courts, but again, the case has been dragged out over years, demonstrating how difficult it is, even when trying to prove the failure of due process, to secure not just a decision but any compensation. The new process will make it even harder to get compensation, drag the decision-making processes out for even longer and prove to be basically unfair.
	I support the Lords amendment, because at least it moves us a little further forward, although I think even it will be open to significant challenge in the courts.

Mark Durkan: I rise to support Lords amendment 112 and oppose the Government’s amendment in lieu. The Minister told us that the Government were moving to allay the concerns raised by the use of the word “innocence” and its abuse in the Bill as originally drafted. Of course, many of us argued that the wording used in the original Bill changed all the normal presumptions about innocence under the rule of law and that it was tilting things to say that because someone had not proved their innocence they could remain guilty, even though they had been released on a quashed conviction. We were concerned not just about the word “innocence” but about the fact that the burden of proof would be reloaded for cases subject to review on the basis of new evidence that could lead to a quashed conviction. We were concerned that the question of compensation would be tested by altering the burden of proof so that new evidence had to prove someone’s innocence. The onus was being put on that person and their legal team to show the strength of the evidence.
	The Government’s response to the Lords’ fairly reasonable and measured amendment is to say that they have solved the problem of innocence by using the term “did not commit” about the offence. The Minister was asked again and again to tell us the difference. A brand of soup—I cannot remember which—used to be advertised by the slogan, “The difference is in the thickness.” We are being told that there is a big difference and the Minister is emphasising its importance, but he cannot explain, specify, spell out or measure in any way the difference between whether someone can show that the evidence proves that they are innocent of an offence or whether they can show that it proves that they did not commit the offence. Even some of the interventions from the Government Back Benches seemed to rest more on whether there was evidence that an offence had been committed than on whether there was evidence that the person had actually committed the offence.
	There are cases, of course, in which we know that gross and horrible offences have been committed, but that is very different from saying that that proves that a person who was charged and convicted of that offence has committed it. At other times, offences that might or might not have been committed are subject to questions and conjecture. We might consider our experiences in this House, as we might be thrown into the spotlight of public judgment about whether or not we did something. If we consider “did not commit” and “innocent” in that context, we might start to tease out some of the differences.
	If as MPs we were arrested on the basis of some allegation, the fact that we were not charged and nothing more happened would show that we were innocent, but would other people necessarily say that it proved that no offence had been committed and nothing had happened? Things might be different; there can be a difference between “innocent” and “did not commit”. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, it is hard to prove a negative. We know from recent events of major publicity and political import in which allegations were made that someone had spoken to and treated police officers in a particular way, leading to consequences and all sorts of sweeping media and public judgments—although thankfully not court judgments—that that person was put in the position of having to prove a negative. They were asked to prove that they did not say what they were meant to have said and that they did not behave in the way that they were meant to have behaved.
	We need to think not only about the hard and serious cases when we consider miscarriages of justice in this jurisdiction; some of the questions about the difference between “innocent” and “did not commit” can be asked closer to home about cases that do not necessarily reach the criminal courts. If we are conscious about language and the standards, judgments and measure of such things, it might help us and make us a wee bit more sensitive about how we word things as legislators.
	The Lords amendment is designed, I believe, to meet the problem that the Government were seeking to address in the Bill. The Government said that they did not want to create a situation whereby the quashing of a conviction led either to the automatic fact of compensation or to the automatic assumption or expectation of compensation. They felt that some other test or qualification was needed. That was what the Government decided; it might not have been the starting point for some of us who have campaigned on miscarriages of justice cases such as those of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. Long after the latter conviction was overturned, I worked with Gerry Conlon and his mother to try to ensure that there was an apology that fully vindicated them and voiced their innocence, because many people in the system and the media were still trying to hide behind the pretence that it was a technical quashing of the conviction but that the conviction itself was due and proper. For them, the issue is not compensation but the absolute assertion of innocence. That was why offence was taken at the use and abuse of the term “innocence” in the original Bill, but that was not the only issue. The burden of proof was altered and an attempt was made to allow in the system for someone who had been convicted and imprisoned for a long period not to be entitled to compensation, because they could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence or their innocence.
	Lord Pannick’s amendment accepts the Government's premise that there needs to be a definition and bases that definition on many issues that have been tested in other cases, including, as we have heard from the Minister, the Adams case. Based on the working and practical use of the law, the Lords amendment is wise and considered in its suggestion that a new or newly discovered fact should show conclusively that the evidence against the person at trial is so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it. That is not a hard test, as
	it does not open up things to conjecture. It basically allows courts to do what many appeal courts and more senior courts often have to do in considering the material evidence that would have been in front of a lower court and to make a judgment on that basis.
	The Lords amendment would simply allow someone, after their conviction has been quashed, to pursue compensation on the basis that the quality of the new evidence shows that there would not have been a conviction in the first place. By refusing that, the Government are basically seeking to return to a situation in which the courts, the police and the prosecution service could be seen as part of a nexus of pursuing and achieving a miscarriage of justice. The beauty of the Lords amendment is that it would clearly take the lower court out of the frame, because it states that had the lower court known about such evidence, it would never have achieved the conviction.
	What we have not heard in the Government’s case today, or indeed at other times, is exactly what the state’s case would be in relation to some of those compensation cases. Will the prosecutor and the police basically say, “No, we are contesting this, because the quality of the evidence we had was good enough and would have been worthy”? That would create, to use Lord Denning’s terrible phrase, an “appalling vista.” We might end up with the law, as it is stated here, meaning that the state authorities will still use the new wording offered by the Government to make that suggestion and to implicate the courts in that case as well.
	As we know, the courts have been able to make wise and sensitive judgments based on the balance of the material available—the material that was available historically and that is available currently. Lord Pannick’s amendment would allow the courts to continue to behave in that measured and responsive way and to take full account of the fact that a conviction has been quashed, but the issue of compensation does not flow automatically from that; it relates to testing whether or not the evidence, had it been available the first time, would have undermined the original conviction. That seems reasonable to me, because it rests on what would have been reasonable for a court to decide, and on the judicial system having confidence in its norms, practices, assumptions and presumptions. It would not rely on anybody else having to discharge an inordinate burden of proof of their innocence—of whether they had committed an offence, if it was known to have been committed, or of whether they committed an offence that might not be known and not even fully proven, because whether or not it was committed and who was involved in the conspiracy could be a matter of conjecture.
	I would also like to point out that victims of miscarriages of justice have not only been offended and insulted by the way the Government brought forward their original clause and their clumsy amendment in lieu; they are also clear that the issue has never been simply about compensation alone. Indeed, I am very conscious that, along with Gerry Conlon and other victims of miscarriages of justice, and along with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and others, we worked with the Ministry of Justice in the previous Parliament to try to provide some other remedies and support for victims of miscarriages
	of justice. As the Minister said, people who have been wrongly convicted face enormous challenges in putting their lives back together.
	However, those victims of miscarriages of justice are not given the sort of psychological support and remedial therapy that the Government rightly make available to released hostages, for example; to those who have had dire experiences while serving abroad in the military or potentially in custody; or to those who have been held hostage in civilian situations or as volunteers overseas. In those cases, highly specialised support and treatment is made available, yet the traumas and the adjustments that they have to try to make are very similar to those of victims of deep miscarriages of justice and a harrowing time in prison, perhaps because of the nature of the offence for which they were charged and the nature of the treatment they received, and not just from prison authorities, but from the prison population.
	I ask the Minister, in moving beyond the immediate detail of the Bill, as well as in considering compensation, which I believe the Government are misaddressing in their amendment in lieu to the reasonable Lords amendment, to look to the other issues, because if he is saying that compensation should not be the only answer and the only thing we are thinking about, what other answer are the Government providing, because they have failed to move forward on the measures examined by the previous Government?
	I find it hard to take seriously anything he said today, because he still cannot explain the difference, and exactly the import of that difference, between what he is offering in his original clause and the amendment in lieu. The reality is that the only real difference—the valid and important difference—is that which is contained in the Lords amendment. That is why the House should agree to Lords amendment 112.

Hywel Williams: I wish to add my voice to those seeking to support Lords amendment 112. I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) for his guidance and advice on the matter. He would have been here if that were possible.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to the long-term damage done to individuals, and indeed to their families, by such miscarriages of justice. In the case of the Cardiff Three, damage was clearly done not only to those individuals and their families, but to an entire community. I believe that what happened was a public harm, because it damaged relations between community groups in Cardiff. We must not underestimate the importance of that case.
	The Lords rejected the Government’s original intention, which was to place an expectation that the defendant would have to prove that
	“the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent of the offence”
	in order to gain compensation. As I said in an intervention, that would have placed a heavier burden of proof on the individual, as he or she would have been forced to prove their innocence of a crime years or even decades after it took place. The Lords instead passed their amendment 112, which means that a person could be awarded compensation, provided that the evidence now used
	against them could not possibly result in a conviction at trial. That means that the evidence against a person is so undermined that no conviction could be based on it.
	Regrettably, the Government now intend to disagree with the Lords and, in effect, reiterate their original intention by saying that the evidence would need to prove that the defendant “did not commit” the offence. We have already heard the debates about the semantic difference between “did not commit” and “innocent”—I was imagining lawyers dancing on the head of a pin. That would once again place the burden of proof on the defendant. It asks the defendant to do something that is virtually impossible: to prove a negative—that they did not do a certain thing—years after the trial has taken place.
	The Minister said that it would not be useful to provide examples of individual cases. The Government’s attempts to change the law covering compensation in cases in which an alleged miscarriage of justice has taken place runs contrary to case law, which cements the current position. Some cases have been suggested to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. In R (Mullen) v. the Home Secretary, Lord Bingham successfully argued that a miscarriage of justice can occur where an individual has been wronged by
	“a failure of the trial process”.
	The burden is not on the defendant to prove that they were innocent. In R (AH) v. the Secretary of State for Justice, the divisional court ruled that a miscarriage of justice occurs where an individual can prove
	“beyond reasonable doubt, that no reasonable jury... properly directed as to the law, could convict on the evidence now to be considered.”
	It is chilling to think that the cases of the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven, the Guildford Four and, as I have mentioned, the Cardiff Three would not have satisfied the new test put forward by the Government. If Lords amendment 112 is overturned, individuals who have already suffered a miscarriage of justice will be further wronged by not being able to access the compensation due to them—compensation meant to represent roughly the amount they would have received in earnings had they not been imprisoned.
	I do not believe that the Government have offered an adequate reason for introducing this ill-advised provision. The Secretary of State, by refusing to change the Government’s proposals, is not only refusing to listen to Members of the other place, but ignoring the advice of external organisations, such as Liberty and Justice, that oppose the change.
	I urge Members to disagree with the Government and insist on Lords amendment 112 in order to uphold the current position based on case law, which determines that a miscarriage of justice has occurred if it can be shown
	“conclusively that the evidence against the person at trial is so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it”.
	As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, the presumption of innocence is a key principle of the justice system. Defendants should never have to prove their own innocence. There can be no
	reason why such an unfair burden should be placed on defendants seeking to prove that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. Lords amendment 112 must be upheld.

Jeremy Corbyn: I rise to support Opposition Front Benchers. Lords amendment 112 uses the words,
	“conclusively that the evidence against the person at trial is so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it”.
	I put it to the Minister that that is surely about as good as we are going to get as an effective definition in taking things forward. If we have to take the route of proving that an offence was not committed, then I see all kinds of injustices occurring further down the line. A point was made about Barry George. We all agree that the murder of Jill Dando was disgusting, appalling and revolting, and obviously the person who did it should suffer the consequences of committing it. Barry George was imprisoned and later released. Therefore, the court had decided that he did not commit the offence. Has he now to prove his innocence even though he has been released by a court? That case is very well known, and I suspect that very many others do not get that degree of publicity. Miscarriages of justice happen all the time.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has had to leave to chair a Public and Commercial Services Union group meeting but will return, I was very involved in the Birmingham and Guildford cases. Indeed, Paul Hill, who was the first person ever arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, was a constituent of mine. I went through the whole business of the campaign, and eventually those people were released and compensation was paid. However, I have to say two things about the compensation. First, there seemed to be a calculation based on the expected income of those people throughout their lives, yet at the time of their arrest, the Guildford Four were not particularly well paid, working as part-time building workers in some cases, and one would not have said that their economic prospects were particularly good. But who knows what would have happened to their economic prospects had that terrible miscarriage of justice not happened?
	Secondly, one area of compensation was not effectively taken into account. This was not just about the emotional cost to the wider families—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is correct that there have been some awful traumas in the families of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and many others—but the financial cost. In mounting a campaign to try to gain the release of a convicted prisoner, particularly when they have been convicted of very serious offences, it is difficult to gain public support and even more difficult to find anybody to help finance it, so in many cases the families paid out a great deal of money themselves.
	The step forward that was taken on the release of the Birmingham and Guildford people was the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, from which we took very interesting evidence last week in the Justice Committee. There are a number of cases that it does not review because it does not think there is enough evidence to do so. When people come back and demand a re-examination, in some cases the CCRC will then review. In the very large number of cases where it does review, it sends those cases back to the Court of Appeal and subsequently the individual is released. On that basis, compensation should be automatic—a given. If
	someone has been convicted, the case has been reviewed by the Court of Appeal, and they have been released, obviously the Court of Appeal must have had some very good grounds for releasing them. I do not see why they should then have to go through another hoop of trying to get compensation by proving that they did not commit an offence that they have been released for not committing. We are getting into a big problem in this regard.
	I realise that the Minister is unlikely to change his mind at this stage, but if we as a House do the right thing and accept the Lords amendment, that would be good. If we reject it, I hope that the Lords will return to it and insist on it, because it protects some of the very good advances that we have made in dealing with miscarriages of justice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) pointed out, the judicial system is not perfect. No legal system is perfect. The jury system is as good as we will get, but it is not perfect. Juries can make mistakes or misread evidence; all kinds of things go wrong. Highly trained legal minds can misread evidence and get things wrong. These things happen. Therefore, there must be the failsafe of an appeals system. There can be gross miscarriages of justice, as we well know. There has to be a further safeguard, and that is where the review system and the Court of Appeal come in.
	When society as a whole has got it wrong about an individual, that individual cannot get the years back. They cannot get their youth back, they cannot get their life back, and they cannot get back all those years of missing their children, their grandchildren, their friends, their family and everything else, but they can at least get some financial compensation, which is society’s way of saying that we got it wrong and we are determined to make sure that it does not happen again in future.
	We owe it to the families who campaigned for justice for the McGuire Seven, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and so many others to say “Thank you” for the work they did in bringing about these changes. I feel very sad that the Government now seem in part to be undermining that progress by rejecting the Lords amendment. I hope that the Minister will think again on this subject.

Damian Green: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond briefly to some of the important points that have been made during this debate.
	Taking this back to first principles, the domestic courts have always made it clear that compensation should be paid when the new facts that form the basis on which a person’s conviction was quashed clearly show that the applicant did not commit the offence. However, the courts have never been able to define without ambiguity a stable and robust test. Given the courts’ difficulty in this area, we decided to create a clear and definitive statutory test, the requirement for which is supported by Parliament and others, including the Joint Committee on Human Right, although I appreciate not by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and conceivably the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), although he did not address the point.
	With regard to the test, we have sought to provide an amendment that recognises that compensation should be paid only to those who genuinely warrant it. What we require to achieve that is for the new fact to demonstrate that the applicant did not commit the crime—I addressed the various situations in which that could be shown—and that this should be evident from the reasons outlined in the Court of Appeal’s judgment that led to the quashing of an applicant’s conviction. The applicant does not have to prove their innocence—in other words, the reversal of the burden of proof, which Members have mentioned. That is simply not the case. The reasons why the applicant could not have committed the crime will be evident from what is outlined in a successful appeal.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) talked about the Sally Clark case. Obviously it is difficult to say how we would consider any applications where compensation would be payable under the new test in the abstract. We have heard much mention of their lordships’ discussion of this. On Report in the Lords, there was disagreement between two eminent lawyers as to the facts of the case that would be fundamental in consideration of an application for compensation. Great lawyers can disagree about that, but what we do know, and what therefore cannot be in dispute, is that the Secretary of State did grant compensation in that case.

Jack Dromey: Just for the record, Lord Saville of Newdigate, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Scott of Foscote, who are members of the Supreme Court, all supported amendment 112. Why is the Minister pitching this at the level of beyond reasonable doubt?

Damian Green: I should point out that Lord Brown disagreed and that the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Adams case was five to four. It genuinely is the case that our most distinguished lawyers were very close to disagreeing.
	On the question of beyond reasonable doubt, the ambiguity we seek to resolve with our amendment (a) is illustrated not just by the 13 cases currently awaiting consideration by the administrative court, but by the disagreement between the lawyers in the House of Lords about whether Sally Clark would not have qualified for compensation under that test. The fact that the hon. Gentleman could not tell my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) whether the test he supports—the conclusive test—is one of beyond reasonable doubt or of the balance of probabilities reflects that test’s inherent ambiguity.
	There is nothing new in the “beyond reasonable doubt” test. The existing provision in section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 already requires a miscarriage of justice to be shown to have occurred beyond reasonable doubt. The Government, therefore, are not introducing a new test. The aspect on which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Foyle have laid such great weight is already in the 1988 Act, which we are seeking to improve.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made a reasonable point. He does not think that Parliament should get involved at all and that we should just leave it to the lawyers. I disagree with that argument and so do
	most people who have addressed the issue. I think we should try to set out a clear, unambiguous basis for the payment of compensation.
	I return to the basic point that where the new fact which underpins the quashing of the conviction clearly shows that the offence did not happen, that the applicant could not have carried out the offence or that someone else carried out the offence, that would qualify as a miscarriage of justice. That seems to me to be clearer and less ambiguous than what we have at the moment. It will not deny anyone who genuinely deserves compensation from getting it.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 112.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 292, Noes 239.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 112 disagreed to.
	Amendment (a) proposed in lieu of Lords amendment 112.—(Damian Green.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 297, Noes 238.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 112.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Power to grant injunctions

Norman Baker: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 1 to 68, 138 and 168.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The House is agreeing with Lords amendment 1 only, with which we will consider Lords amendments 2 to 111.

Norman Baker: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am so keen to agree that I got carried away.
	The amendments deal with the new antisocial behaviour powers in parts 1 to 6 of the Bill, and I will deal briefly with each one in turn. Members will, I am sure, have watched with interest the proceedings in the House of Lords on the test for issuing an injunction in part 1 of the Bill. Because of the clear vote in the Lords, where there seems to be a majority, and in the light of that debate, the Government has accepted that the test for an injunction should be amended. Lords amendments 1 and 5 will provide for a two-tier test, and the nuisance or annoyance test will continue to be used to deal with housing-related antisocial behaviour. In all other circumstances, the test of harassment, alarm or distress will apply.
	The Government believes that the fears raised in the Lords and by campaign groups were unfounded, and our view is shared by the Law Society and housing providers who have been using the nuisance or annoyance test responsibly and proportionately for more than a decade. The suggestion was made that we somehow wanted to curtail the activities of carol singers. It is slightly difficult to believe that any Government would want to do that, and that we would mis-write legislation to enable that to occur. We are then expected to believe that a local council or police officer would want to use the legislation to ban carol singers. We are then expected to believe that any court in the land would deem it proportionate, just and convenient to ban carol singers. Of course, by the time a court had so decided, several weeks on, the carol singers would have left the place where they were singing and it would not be possible to capture them. I think that that example shows some of the exaggeration and scaremongering that have occurred on this proposal. The Lords have spoken, however, and we have listened carefully. It is a democratic Parliament and we have therefore accepted, largely, the substance of Lord Dear’s amendments.

Jim Shannon: I do not take exception to the Minister’s comments, but those of religious persuasion who are concerned about the proposed
	changes support the view that the Lords have put forward. Will the Minister confirm that the position of those of religious persuasion and religious beliefs will not be in any way changed?

Norman Baker: Yes, I am happy to deal with the issue of religious beliefs. Lords amendments 2 and 19 respond to concerns by the Joint Committee on Human Rights relating to the provision in clauses 1 and 21 that require a court to avoid, so far as practicable, imposing prohibitions or requirements in an injunction or a criminal behaviour order that would conflict with a respondent’s religious beliefs. The amendments remove this wording, as the right to hold a religious belief is absolute. It was simply the manifestation of a person’s religious beliefs that we intended the provision to capture, but a court would be obliged to consider this in any case to comply with its obligations under the Human Rights Act. That being the case, the neatest solution is simply to remove the provision. That is what has happened, and I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Mark Field: While I agree with the Minister that we should agree with what the Lords have had to say on this matter, I do not necessarily think that it is the result of the workings of democracy—it is anything but. He slightly trivialised the issue of carol singers, but there is a bigger nuisance concern. For example, there might be a sense that if trick or treating was being clamped down on, it would be unfair not to clamp down on other activities, such as carol singing. I think that that is what might have been behind the Lords thoughts on this matter.

Norman Baker: I am not quite sure what was in the Lords thoughts. Other examples were given—bellringers and so on—and nobody in this country would want, in any way, to limit the activities of bellringers. I fear that the Government’s honest attempt to deal with genuine antisocial behaviour has been misconstrued, either inadvertently or otherwise, but we are where we are. We have accepted the form of words—“harassment, alarm or distress”—which was wanted by their lordships.
	The next set of amendments in this group relate to under-18s. Lords amendments 3, 4 and 12 enable an applicant for an injunction to apply to the youth court for permission to have cases involving respondents, who are both over and under 18 years of age, to be heard together in the youth court if it is in the interests of justice to do so. If the youth court does not grant the application, the hearings will be separated, with the adults in the county court and the under-18s in the youth court. By linking these hearings, we will help to put victims first.
	Lords amendment 10 brings us to the prohibitions that can be included in an injunction where the respondent is under 18. As originally drafted, clause 12 meant that the injunction could be used to exclude a respondent of any age from his or her home in cases of violence or risk to others. However, in the Lords, concerns were expressed, by my Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Hamwee, on whether it would ever be appropriate to exclude under-18s from their own home on the grounds of antisocial behaviour. Lords amendment 10 limits the exclusion provisions to injunctions where the respondent is over 18. Where it is in the best interests of the child to
	be removed from the family home, there are sufficient powers in other safeguarding legislation to ensure that that is possible without the need to resort to an injunction.
	Other amendments and provisions in this group relate to tenancy injunctions, the criminal behaviour order, dispersal powers, the public spaces protection order, the recovery of possession of dwelling houses and the issuing of statutory guidance. I will be very happy to pick up on any questions that Members have on any of those particular matters.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for outlining how the Government do not intend to oppose the Lords amendments, although it is interesting that he bows to the wisdom of the Lords on this issue, but not on miscarriages of justice. The Lords amendments, particularly on the threshold for injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance, improve the Bill, taking the threshold from “nuisance and annoyance” to “harassment, alarm or distress”, but overall we feel that the Bill still weakens the powers against antisocial behaviour, which is of growing concern to people. It is a badly worded Bill thrown together on the usual principle of, “We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it”, which the Government seem to operate under. Large parts of the Bill will not offer people the protection they need.

Mark Field: I think the hon. Lady is being too sceptical about the genesis of these provisions. As a central London MP, I do not think that everything about the old ASBO regime was bad; elements worked well for many of my constituents. I know that Westminster City council has expressed concerns, which were raised in another place, but it is still a little unfair to suggest that nothing good is coming from the Bill. We will have to see how it works in practice.

Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that in many cases ASBOs worked. I have seen them work in my own area, as he has in his. As he said, it remains to be seen how the Bill will work, but I look forward to debating it in the future.
	I want to comment on a number of other amendments in this group that the Minister did not mention, but I do not intend to take up too much of the House’s time. We are grateful that the Government have accepted the Lords amendments on forced marriage originally moved on Report by my noble Friend Baroness Thornton and later taken up by the Government, who tabled similar amendments ensuring that where a person lacks capacity an offence would be committed where conduct was carried out for the purpose of forcing someone into a marriage. It is arguable, I agree, that this is the case under present law, but the amendment makes it clear. It is sensible because it ensures that where a person is incapable of understanding the implications of their decision, the new offence can be committed even without violence, threats or coercion. This will also apply in Scotland.
	Much work still needs to be done on forced marriage, and I commend the work of the forced marriage unit and all those working in this area, but the House is making it clear in the Bill that British children and young people, whatever the colour of their skin, and including the most vulnerable who lack capacity, will
	have the same protections in law as anyone else, and that is to be welcomed. There are many things in the Bill on which we might disagree, but on this issue, the House is united. These provisions will take us forward.
	The Government’s firearms amendments seem fairly minor: one closes the loophole around antique firearms, which seems perfectly sensible, while the other relates to suspended sentences. Currently, a three-year jail term bans someone from owning a firearm for life and a three-month sentence leads to a five-year ban. The amendment treats a three-month suspended sentence in the same way, which we welcome, although it does not go far enough. When someone has a conviction, the police have grounds for refusing an application. The problem comes when there is no conviction but the police have evidence of violent behaviour in the past. That was why we wanted an amendment to provide that where the police found credible evidence of domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse, a firearms licence could be refused. No sensible gun owner has anything to fear from such a provision.
	The case of Michael Atherton is the one that I must refer to here. He was convicted of the murders of his partner, Susan McGoldrick, her sister and her niece. He had a long history of domestic violence, but he was still allowed to own four shotguns. The licensing officer’s comments on his application were chilling. He wrote:
	“Four domestics, last one 24/4/04, was cautioned for assault. Still resides with partner and son and daughter. Would like to refuse, have we sufficient to refuse re public safety?”
	Durham constabulary decided it did not have sufficient grounds to refuse and people died as a result. This is an issue that the Opposition will want to return to in the future because it is essential to keep women safe.

Jim Shannon: I sympathise greatly and understand the issue that the hon. Lady raises. In the case of someone against whom a domestic complaint has been made to the police which is unsubstantiated, how would that be taken care of, in the Opposition’s view, under impending legislation? Incidents are not always taken as proof; there may be only complaints that are not substantiated.

Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He is right that incidents of domestic violence do not always make it to court for a number of reasons, usually involving the vulnerability of the victims, but in such cases the police would have to find credible evidence of domestic violence or drug or alcohol abuse, and that refusal could be challenged in court. As a first premise, we should be clear that we should not put guns in the hands of people with such a record. We know that there are people who need to hold guns for a number of reasons. For example, farmers—some of my relatives are farmers—and vets do, but we should not be putting guns into the hands of people with a record of domestic violence. I hope that in time the Government will see that.
	I shall comment briefly on the amendments to deal with child sexual exploitation, particularly amendment 76, which allows closure of premises suspected of harbouring those who have committed child abuse. We know from the cases that have happened in Rochdale, Oxford and other towns in this country how horrific some of this
	abuse has been. The reviews from Oxford and Rochdale were very clear that certain premises were repeatedly used for grooming and sexual exploitation. It was, in my view, impossible for the proprietors of those premises not to know what was taking place there. In Oxford it was guest houses in particular, and it was horrific beyond belief.
	When the Minister responds to the debate, will he clarify one point in particular? For a closure order there has to be reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence has occurred. This could be a sexual offence against a child, but the obvious thing that we are likely to be dealing with in such situations is grooming, and the offence of grooming is quite a hard one to establish. That is why there are few convictions for it. The adult has to have met and communicated with the child twice, and the adult must then meet the child and, at that time, the offender must have the intention of committing a relevant sexual offence.
	Perhaps the Minister could clarify for us how the police will have a reasonable suspicion of all aspects of the offence of grooming, and whether the difficulties in establishing this will prevent the power from being used. If that is found to be the case as time goes on, will he undertake to come back to the House with further proposals if necessary? This issue is causing deep disquiet in some of our communities, and rightly so. When we are talking about protecting children, we should err on the side of caution—on the side of children, as it were, rather than anyone else.

Julie Hilling: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will she say whether she, like me, welcomes Lords amendment 69, which strengthens the penalties for attacks by dogs, but does she regret, as I do, the fact that the Government have not accepted amendments to introduce dog control notices or to continue to review the progress of these changes?

Helen Jones: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I well recall the horrific case in her constituency. I do regret the fact that the Government did not accept what were reasonable suggestions on that issue. I hope we will be able to return to them in future, because we have seen some awful attacks, against children in particular but also against adults. This is something we will have to deal with in future.
	We have reservations about some of the Lords amendments, but all in all we are glad that the Government have accepted them. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to some of my queries when he sums up.

Julian Huppert: There is a huge range of issues to cover in this group of amendments. I will not even try to touch on them all, but will talk about a few that I am particularly concerned about and have raised on a number of occasions.
	This Bill started with pre-legislative scrutiny. It is telling, to me at least, that quite a number of the amendments made in the other place were originally recommended during pre-legislative scrutiny. Perhaps if the Government looked at pre-legislative scrutiny earlier, we might get there somewhat faster. With that in mind, I particularly welcome the changes to the injunction to
	prevent nuisance and annoyance, or IPNA—the issue that has received perhaps the most attention—in Lords amendments 1 to 5. This is a welcome change, and I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his work in getting us to this place.
	During the pre-legislative scrutiny, the Home Affairs Select Committee said there was a risk that the provisions could be interpreted as being too broad. The Minister has quite rightly described why some of the stories that were going round—for example, about how carol singing would be prevented—were simply not true but were good debating points. We made it clear that we had real concerns with the provisions as they stood. I am pleased that, as a result of the changes in the other place, we now have something that is much more proportionate. We have moved away from causing nuisance and annoyance in the general sense to something more serious. That is definitely right, because all of us are quite capable, I am sure, of causing nuisance or annoyance to people on various occasions.

Richard Fuller: Some more than others.

Julian Huppert: I hope my hon. Friend would join me in being in the annoying category.

Richard Fuller: It would be a club of one.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think we go through the Chair.

Julian Huppert: I was somewhat surprised by the original amendment passed in the other place, which was backed by many, including Labour peers, because it wrote into law discrimination that I would not be happy with. We have rules about behaviour that is unfair—behaviour that is too harsh—but I was really surprised to see an amendment that said there should be one set of rules for people in social housing and a completely different set of rules for people in private housing. If someone’s behaviour is causing problems that are sufficiently serious to be dealt with under the Bill, the form of tenure should not matter. I was very disappointed by that amendment and very pleased that the Government corrected it. What we now have corrects that problem and I am happy to support it, because I would not have been able to support the previous version from the Lords.

Jack Dromey: Just for the record, the proposal for a tenure-neutral approach in fact came from Labour Lords.

Julian Huppert: I do not have the list of exactly who proposed what. The Government amendment we have is neutral; the one that Labour peers supported in the other place was not tenure-neutral. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that that was a flaw in it, although the other principle was there.
	I welcome the change, although I remain surprised by the position of the Opposition, who felt that the version that left this place was both too draconian and too liberal. I am glad that their position has moved in a more liberal direction. The new approach is far better than the failed system of ASBOs, which many young people collected as a badge of honour. A huge number
	of people broke them; they simply did not work. I think that this non-criminalising approach will work much better.
	Let me turn now to some of the other issues. Lords amendment 10 is important and concerns the principle that we should not be using these rules to throw children out of their own homes. The Lords pushed for that, and it is a shame that we did not manage to get it fixed in this place. The importance of care for the under-18s should have been emphasised more strongly during the Bill’s earlier stages, and I am glad that it has been emphasised more strongly now. This is another of the issues that were dealt with by the Home Affairs Committee. I am also pleased that Lords amendment 11 proposes the removal of clause 13, because it discriminated on the basis of tenure.
	Lords amendments 23 and 24 deal with the rights of free expression and free assembly. The Home Affairs Committee recommended that we should ensure that dispersal powers were not used in a way that could damage those rights. Before my hon. Friend became a Minister in this Department, the Government moved some of the way towards this, and I am glad that he has now been able to persuade them to move the whole way, so that we can protect all forms of free expression and free assembly.
	Lords amendments 59 to 64 deal with cases of riot. Riot is of course very serious, and we have already seen what it can lead to in this country. As a result of what happened, the Prime Minister said that he wanted stronger powers to deal with the families of people who were rioting. Many of us felt that, although we could understand the tensions that existed at the time, his suggestion went too far. It did not seem appropriate to throw everyone out of a house because a 16-year-old child had committed a minor offence where a riot was happening. I do not in any sense condone either the riot or the behaviour, but throwing an entire family out of their home seems to be a disproportionate response. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his work in this regard, which has led to the proposal that an automatic eviction should take place only if the offence is committed by an adult, and only if it is a serious, indictable offence. A trivial offence that happened to be committed near a riot would not lead to such an eviction; nor would an offence committed by a child.
	Finally, let me raise two issues that we had very little time to discuss during our initial debates in this House, and that were not particular topics of interest at that stage. The first involves surveillance and the Terrorism Act 2000. Lords amendment 102 and related amendments deal with the powers of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to deal with complaints about the surveillance commissioners and their decisions. The IPT does not necessarily work as well as it needs to, and it is not as transparent and open as it needs to be, but I am glad that we are taking a step towards more transparency. Surveillance oversight is an extremely important subject, and the Bill does not finish what we need to do about it. There is much more to be done, but although the amendments represent just a tiny piece of the jigsaw, I welcome them.
	Lords amendment 100 and related amendments deal with schedule 8, which amends schedules 7 and 8 to the Terrorism Act. Schedule 7 became very topical at the time of the detention of David Miranda. I am pleased that, after a great deal of argument in this House, we
	have managed to get some changes made in the House of Lords. People must be questioned within an hour of detention, reviews must take place within two hours of that, and people’s right to consult a solicitor is made clear. That fundamental right was omitted by the Terrorism Act when it was passed by the last Government. There is much more to be done about that as well, but I am very pleased with all the amendments. I commend the Minister and his team for their work, and look forward to our passing the amendments promptly.

Mark Field: I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that it is a shame that the Government did not take more account of the pre-legislative scrutiny, relying instead on the other place. I accept that all too often, whichever Government are in play, the electoral arithmetic ensures that legislation is rushed through and guillotined here in the House of Commons, and some sensible suggestions are then made in the House of Lords, many of which—as in this instance—we end up not seeking to oppose. Given the relative paucity of legislation in the House of Commons over the next 15 months, I hope that we will pay the House a little more respect, and ensure that whatever Bills come before us during the fifth year of this five-year Parliament are given proper scrutiny.
	I support what the Government are doing in Lords amendments 40, 41 and 44 to 47, which relate to public bodies that can issue a public spaces protection order. That has particular resonance in my constituency, and I am glad that a number of friends—in the broadest sense—of the City of London corporation in another place were able to make some important changes. Numerous other bodies which operate open spaces under local Acts—such as the Wimbledon and Putney commons conservators, to name but two of them—will also benefit from what the Government are doing. The proposed new clause would enable bodies other than local authorities administering open spaces under byelaws to use public spaces protection orders. I believe this is particularly relevant to trustees or local conservators who operate under byelaws inferred by private Acts of Parliament, many of which go back not just many decades but some centuries. I hope the Minister agrees with that point.
	The City of London corporation operates some of the most important open spaces in London and the south-east, including Epping forest and Hampstead heath. There are also important local authority parks. In Newham there is West Ham park and there is Queen’s park in the London borough of Brent. It was often under private Acts of Parliament, frequently through bequests of what were the curtilage of large mansion houses, that these local parks and amenities were founded, often back in the 18th and 19th centuries.
	Conservators have exactly the same issues as local authorities in terms of the public open spaces they administer, so it is sensible to include these places in order not to have duplication but to ensure there is not an opportunity for some of these powers to slip through the net. Conservators are not required to use the orders, and they can keep to the local byelaws if they so wish. If they do make an order, however, and the local authority for the area makes its own, the local authority’s order will take precedence. That is right.
	These clauses are sensibly drafted. The powers of the City of London corporation would not in any way
	usurp those of the relevant local authority, but this does provide a belt-and-braces approach to ensure there is a proper focus on public order within those important open spaces.
	I wish the Minister and Government well in getting this change into the Bill and I hope there will be no opposition from any corner of this House.

Richard Drax: I will not detain the House for long. I want to touch briefly on the dangerous dogs element of the Bill. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of which I am a member published its report on dog control and welfare on 6 February 2013. In that report we recommended that all dog-related issues should be consolidated in a comprehensive Bill. This would pull together the fragmented legislation referring to dog control and welfare and allow us to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 where necessary.
	Such consolidation is essential because there are yawning gaps in our legislation. Voluntary compliance with guidelines on responsible ownership has proved to be limited and slow, but that is not surprising as there are 8 million dogs in this country—a huge number. The vast majority are well cared-for, kept and controlled, but there are exceptions. Dangerous dogs have killed seven people, five of them children, since 2007. In my own constituency a small child had her eye savaged by a West Highland terrier, but more about that later because there are certain circumstances there which I want the Minister to cover when he responds to the debate. Dangerous dogs have attacked specially trained dogs for the blind, causing untold grief and difficulties—and let us not forget the postmen and postwomen who all too often are assaulted by animals as they deliver our mail.
	Irresponsible dog breeders, driven only by greed, run puppy farms where a single bitch can legally produce up to five litters a year. That is not good for the welfare of the bitch or her litter. Subsequent failure to socialise these puppies properly has the potential to create more badly behaved and dangerous dogs.
	Under the law as it stands, it has proved impossible to prosecute the owners of vicious dogs if the attack takes place on private property. In such cases it has also frequently proved difficult to prove ownership. The proposals in this Bill include many of the Committee’s recommendations on dog control and welfare, such as compulsory micro-chipping by 2016, stricter oversight of puppy farms, and extending dangerous dogs legislation to private property in clauses 98 and 99, and I wholly endorse them. The tougher sentences in the two amendments in question for those whose dogs attack, injure or kill people or guide dogs for the blind are also necessary and proportionate.
	I have just one concern, which I ask the House to consider. If we legislate to allow enforcement agents on to private property to handle or destroy a dangerous dog after an attack, we are impinging on important rights to privacy in our own homes. While I—and, I am sure, the other members of the EFRA Committee—fully endorse the amendments to the current legislation, any new legislation must be careful to protect those rights.
	I want to give an example from my constituency, and I hope that the Minister will listen to it, because I would be interested to hear his response. A couple and their
	four-year-old daughter were invited to a party next door. It was a dog party, and there were several dogs—and several people—there. In the resulting mêlée of people wandering around and having tea, the couple lost sight of their daughter. Suddenly, they heard the most appalling noise. There had been some form of communication with a dog by the girl, but we do not know whether she had poked it in the eye or put her hand in its mouth. Whatever she had done, the dog—a West Highland terrier, which had done no harm at all up till then—responded by leaping up and latching on to the left side of her face. It would not let go, and caused horrific damage to her eye.
	I ask the Minister’s guidance on this point. I assume that, under the proposed new law, the lady who owned the dog would face a criminal prosecution. If that is the case, the change in the law will provide a salutary warning to dog owners who keep their dog in their home, as many millions of people do. When the law is passed, they will have to be very careful what they do with their dog when inviting people into their house. I suspect that not many people have even considered the matter up to now. I have two dogs, and I do not think about whether they are going to attack anyone who comes into my house. From now on, however, I am going to have to think carefully. If a child comes into my house, I am going to have to think about whether my dogs could assault that child.
	Obviously, it goes without saying that a dog owner must take responsibility for their dog, but I raise this question because I wonder whether the process of the law has been thought through by everyone outside this place. Can the Minister confirm that, if the new law had applied at the time of that incident, the lady in question would not have faced five years in jail, and that the judge would have considered all the facts of the case and perhaps recommended that the dog be put down, with the lady facing no further consequences? Will the Minister also tell us how and when the enforcers would go into the owner’s house in such a case? If a complaint was made, would they go in on the same night to remove the dog, informing the owner that it could either be put down or returned, depending on the result of the ensuing investigation? I ask the Minister to clarify those points if he can.
	I assume that if the dog owner were someone with a bad reputation—let us be blunt: if they were well known to the police for breeding properly vicious dogs, rather than West Highland terriers, for ill-gotten gains—the enforcer would simply go into the house and take the appropriate action. That is exactly as it should be. Such a case would be very different from the one that I have described, in which a perfectly innocent lady was going about her business when an appalling accident happened. Yes, that accident could have been avoided if the dog had been locked up, and that is the point that I would like to have clarified. I welcome the Lords amendments to allow people who have dogs on private property to be reached by the law. That is incredibly important, but I would be most grateful if the Minister could comment on the example that I have raised.

Richard Fuller: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), because I am always better informed after listening to his speeches. I wish to speak to Lords amendment 69,
	which deals with changes to the penalties relating to attacks by dogs, and I, too, hope that the Minister will respond directly to the points that my hon. Friend and I are raising today.
	This amendment originated in the Bill Committee in this House. I, too, thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for supporting the pressure that was put on the Government in Committee to increase the maximum sentence permissible for these offences. We were all appalled by the evidence that the police gave in our evidence sessions, so I am very pleased that Lord de Mauley took forward the Committee’ recommendations, produced this amendment, and obtained the Government’s support and, I hope, that of the whole House.
	There have been a number of victims of dangerous dogs. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has made a powerful case on behalf of her constituents who were affected by a dangerous dog, and other hon. Members have done the same on behalf of victims of upsetting cases that resulted in only a minimum sentence. The police told us how difficult it was for them to prosecute under the existing legislation, and Lords amendment 69 gives them the tools they need to deal with the small minority of people that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset was talking about who breed or keep dogs that go out of control, attacking and maiming people. The police will now have the measures to provide the proper prosecution and sentencing through the courts for those people.
	The amendment is also an indication of the good work of the trade unions. The Communication Workers Union has run an excellent campaign in support of its members who face the daily risk of attack by a dog. Such attacks can end in injury and be quite severe: they may have a negative psychological effect on postal workers. It is fair to put on the record my support for the CWU and its campaign to bring this legislation to the House.
	Although this took place before my time here, I understand that legislating on dangerous dogs is treacherous territory for Governments of whatever party or origin. I hope that this amendment will prove to be an exception to that rule, and I commend the Minister for bringing it to the House today.

Norman Baker: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will respond to some of the points that have been raised in a very wide-ranging debate. As you will appreciate, we are considering a huge range of disparate measures, so I will do my best to make sense of them. I welcome the Opposition spokesperson’s general support, even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) says, we are not clear whether they are accusing us of being too draconian or too weak in our response to antisocial behaviour. As they are accusing us of both, perhaps we have got it about right.
	I know that the Opposition are wedded to the ASBO, but the simple fact is that, although it may have been useful on occasions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has said—I am not saying it has not—it has generally been a failure. In 2012, the 1,329 ASBOs issued represented a decrease of 68% since 2005. Up to the end of 2012,
	58% of ASBOs were breached at least once and 43% were breached more than once. Where ASBOs were breached, they were breached five times on average, and the breach rate for under-18s was 69%. Defending a continuation of that arrangement is not a sensible approach for anyone in this House who is as sensible and concerned as everybody should be, and is, about tackling antisocial behaviour.
	The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) also referred to the use of hotels and other such premises for child sexual exploitation and, in particular, for grooming. She wanted to know how the law stood on that matter. If she looks at Lords amendment 77, she will see that subsection 1(b) of the new clause we propose refers to
	“conduct that is preparatory to, or otherwise connected with, child sexual exploitation.”
	I believe that provision is sufficiently wide as to provide reasonable grounds for the police to take action.

Helen Jones: That was precisely my concern; I fear that it is difficult to prove a grooming offence, because of the nature of the offence. I asked the Minister this earlier, but will he keep this under review and, if necessary, come back to the House with further proposals?

Norman Baker: I am happy to keep anything like that under review. Everyone in this House shares a dislike of and distaste for the reprehensible child exploitation activities that some people engage in. Of course there are other evidential trails that the police can use. Grooming often takes place online, and so sometimes evidence can be accrued and then added to the use of a hotel, which then gives the police reasonable grounds for taking action. Of course we will keep matters under review, because we want to ensure that we eliminate all such cases as far as it is possible to do so. We share that objective across the House.
	Comments were also made about the control of dogs. I welcome the fact that we have now rationalised the powers and made them more effective. I am sorry that the Opposition appear to be wedded to dog control notices as the only solution to the problem. [Interruption.] I am delighted that it is not the case of either/or, because the range of powers that we are including in the Bill gives us the opportunity to deal with problems that arise with dogs in a comprehensive and cohesive way. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) says they are not flexible. On the contrary, they are very flexible, which is why they are not specifically dog control notices and why they relate to generalities of antisocial behaviour. That allows action to be taken more easily than was hitherto the case.
	I wish to commend the work on dangerous dogs done by Members in this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). The Bill will put us in a better position when it comes to dangerous dogs. The Government made a commitment to consult on increasing the penalties for an offence under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. That is the aggravated offence of owning or being in charge of a dog that is dangerously out of control—where a dog kills or injures a person or an assistance dog. That was prompted by an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for raising that important issue.
	Following consultation, Lords amendment 69 increases the penalties from the current maximum of two years' imprisonment. Where a dog is dangerously out of control and that results in the death of a person, the maximum penalty will increase to 14 years’ imprisonment. Where a person is injured, the maximum penalty will be five years, and where an assistance dog is injured or killed, it will be three years’ imprisonment. That is a sensible way forward.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) asked about a specific situation in which a person is invited into someone’s home, and what that might mean if an offence is committed. It might be decided that an offence had been committed under those circumstances if the police and then the Crown Prosecution Service conclude that there is sufficient evidence and that a prosecution is in the public interest. That is not to say that such a prosecution would always take place. I suspect that it would be a matter of the CPS concluding that the dog was dangerously out of control and that there were other aggravating factors of that nature. It would not automatically follow that if there were an attack, there would be a prosecution.

Richard Drax: I am most grateful to the Minister for answering my question. If the Crown Prosecution Service decides not to take any action, would someone still be in a position to decide, in the case that I cited, to put down that West Highland terrier because a view had been taken that it was indeed dangerous? What would the situation be there? If the case does not go to court, who has the power to decide on the future of that dog, which has caused an offence on private property?

Norman Baker: On the face of it, if no offence has been committed or pursued, there is no case to answer. However, I imagine that responsible owners would want to take into account the activity that has taken place or the attack on the individual that has occurred. Of course it is always open to people to take civil action if they believe that that is the appropriate course of action. If I find out any further details, I will drop my hon. Friend a line on that particular matter.
	The hon. Member for Warrington North referred to the issue of firearms ownership and guidance, particularly in relation to domestic violence. I assure her that we take both issues extremely seriously. Indeed I am spending a great deal of time on those two issues in my ministerial role. I want to make it plain that the law sets out that the police must consider whether a firearms or shotgun applicant can possess a gun without danger to public safety or the peace. The detailed criteria are set out in the firearms guidance, which can be amended when we believe it to be necessary. On 31 July last year, we took action to strengthen the guidance for the police on domestic violence specifically, and published new, more detailed guidance. For the avoidance of doubt, if there is an expectation or an understanding that someone has been involved in domestic violence, I would expect in most if not all circumstances the police to refuse to issue a licence to that particular individual.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to the Minister, who is being generous in giving way. If the Government accept that that should happen, can he explain why they are so opposed to having it written into law?

Norman Baker: The Opposition, as we saw during their time in government, appear to believe that the
	only solution to anything is to create a law about it. If laws and statutory guidance already exist and it is common practice for certain processes to be followed, it might not be necessary to create a law to achieve the aim that she wants. The question that she should be asking me is whether we have put in place a mechanism to achieve the aim that she rightly identifies, and the answer to that is yes. We do not need to create further legislation to deal with something that has already been dealt with satisfactorily under present arrangements.

David Hamilton: Will we have continuity? What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Parliaments to ensure that we have a similar approach across the country?

Norman Baker: We and my officials have regular discussions with the devolved Administrations on this and other areas, and irrespective of political control the relationships between central Government here in London and the Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are sensible and good. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular concerns and believes that there is a scenario in which the approach has not worked and is willing to drop me a line, I would happily look into it for him and take it further.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) referred to schedule 7, which, unless I have got this wrong, appears in the next string of amendments, but as he raised the matter I will deal with it now. He quite properly asked about our response to the changes to the schedule recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In coming to a final view on that and other matters relating to the schedule, we want to take into account the judgment of the judicial review into the David Miranda case and the report of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation into Mr Miranda's examination. Once they are available, we will naturally study them carefully and decide how best to proceed. Should we conclude that further amendments to schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 are appropriate, we will seek to bring them forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) rightly drew attention to the peculiar powers—peculiar in the sense that they are unique—of the City of London. For example, it is the only authority to be designated a secondary authority for the control of dogs. Let me be clear on this point: we are, of course, deleting the reference to private Acts. Much of the land operated by the City of London corporation, as he mentioned, is done so under a private Act. As worded, the measure would have resulted in that land not being designated as a public space for the purposes of chapter 2 of part 4. That would have the perverse result of restricting the corporation’s ability to manage land that it is entitled to manage under a private Act, and that is why we have taken the steps that we have in that regard.
	I hope that that deals satisfactorily with the amendments and points raised by hon. Members.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 2 to 88 agreed to.
	Lords amendment 89 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.
	Lords amendments 90 to 111 agreed to.
	After Clause 152

Abolition of defence of marital coercion

Norman Baker: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 113.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 114 to 180.

Norman Baker: I will not repeat the numbers, in case I get that wrong, but these are the main amendments to the policing provisions in the Bill. The first relates to schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which we have already touched on and which is a part of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy. Lords amendments were made in line with our ongoing commitment to ensure respect for individual freedoms and the need to balance that against reducing the threat of terrorism to the public in the UK and to British interests overseas. Other amendments clarify how the right to consult a solicitor as soon as is reasonably practicable and privately at any time may be exercised under schedule 7.
	The amendments make it clear that a detained person who exercises the right to consult a solicitor may not be questioned until they have consulted a solicitor or no longer wish to do so unless the examining officer reasonably believes that postponing the questioning would prejudice the determination of whether the detained person appears to be a person who is or has been concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. I would expect that exception to be used very sparingly.
	The amendments also clarify that a detained person is entitled to consult a solicitor in person, where it is practicable to do so, without prejudice to the purpose of the examination. Other amendments respond to a commitment given in Committee in the Lords to consider building on one of the key changes we are already making in the Bill: namely, the introduction of statutory provision for the review of detention under schedule 7 to the 2000 Act. On reflection, we agree that the maximum periods between reviews should be specified in primary legislation, rather than in a code of practice. The amendments provide for a first review of detention by a review officer no later than one hour after the start of detention, and for subsequent reviews at intervals of no more than two hours.
	I ought also to refer to marital coercion. I will deal briefly with a final substantive amendment, Lords amendment 113, tabled by Lord Pannick, which would abolish the defence of marital coercion. It is currently a defence for all criminal offences, other than treason and murder, for a wife to show that she committed the offence in the presence of, and under the coercion of, her husband. The defence is an historical one and reflects the particular dynamics of marriage at the time when it was introduced, which was by section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which in turn abolished the previously existing presumption that a wife who committed any offence, except treason or murder, in the presence of her husband did so under his coercion and should
	therefore be acquitted. For those historical reasons, the defence applies only for the benefit of a woman married to a man. I am happy to say that time has moved on, as indeed will I in a moment. That one-sided defence is now clearly an anachronism, and we accordingly agree that it can be consigned to history. Lords amendment 113 achieves just that.
	These amendments, and the one in the previous string, reaffirm the value of effective scrutiny and demonstrate, yet again, that the Government is receptive to sensible proposals from hon. Members on both sides of the House and from noble Lords to help address the many issues of public policy we face on a daily basis.
	Lords amendment 113 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 114 to 180 agreed to.

Business of the House

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 5 February, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motions in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day.—(Claire Perry.)

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Family Law

That the draft Child Support Fees Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 2 December 2013, be approved.—(Claire Perry.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Family Law

That the draft Child Support (Ending Liability in Existing Cases and Transition to New Calculation Rules) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 2 December 2013, be approved.—(Norman Baker.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Consumer Credit

That the draft Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Green Deal) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 9 January, be approved.—(Claire Perry.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Regulatory Reform

That the draft Legislative Reform (Overseas Registration of Births and Deaths) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 5 December 2013, be approved.—(Claire Perry.)
	Question agreed to.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Energy Company Charges

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us see whether we can get someone to open the debate. Who wishes to move the motion?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Look at that. Albert Owen—just like a man from Wales. Let us start with you.

Albert Owen: I beg to move,
	That this House is disappointed that 17 energy companies in the UK charge their customers more if they do not pay their bills by direct debit; acknowledges that some firms do not charge their customers any extra at all; notes that Department of Energy and Climate Change statistics show that this adds £114 to the average consumer’s bill; further notes that 45 per cent of people do not pay their energy bills by direct debit; recognises that over one million people in the UK do not have access to a bank account; believes that these charges are a stealth tax on the poor; and therefore urges Ofgem to hold an inquiry into these practices, encourages energy companies to operate with more transparency, and urges the Government to consider ways of limiting these charges, such as by introducing a cap.
	I was going to start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on opening the debate; I am sure we will reverse that role when he arrives. I think it is an appropriate time to have such a debate. I am pleased to be among the many Members who have signed the motion. I am not sure—I seek your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker—whether I should stop my speech when the hon. Gentleman arrives, or whether I should continue.

Lindsay Hoyle: Keep going.

Albert Owen: That is what I wanted to hear.
	Energy prices have been a serious issue for some time, but attention has recently been concentrated on it because of the high hikes in those prices. Fuel poverty is very much on the agenda again as many people are feeling the strain of the energy price hikes, particularly in rural areas. I know that the Minister has been before the Energy and Climate Change Committee on this issue. The Department’s own figures show that twice as many people in rural areas as in urban areas are suffering from fuel poverty. It is worth putting that on the record, because people in my constituency and in many constituencies across the UK are really suffering from energy prices.
	As many people are now acknowledging, the energy market is flawed in many ways. As hon. Members will know, it was set up when gas and electricity were privatised. The old structures were used and the energy market developed from that. There were price controls very early on, and the regional distributors and energy companies all came together. In the beginning we had the big three; the big five and the big six were not invented at the time of the near-monopoly under Labour.

Eilidh Whiteford: The hon. Gentleman is setting out the context of this debate extremely well. Does he share my concern that the
	people who are paying the most for their energy are often those least able to afford it under the current regime?

Albert Owen: Yes, absolutely—I am coming to that.
	I want to deal with a number of groups and issues, including the two main themes—vulnerable customers and choice, which the Government talk about all the time but which some people do not have. This is about helping and protecting vulnerable people, and that is the purpose of the motion. It is good to see that the proposer of the motion, the hon. Member for Harlow, is now here. I am taking over his role for a few minutes, but I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that he will catch your eye and will not be penalised for being late.
	There has been some progress on energy prices. Compared with a few years ago, bills are more transparent and a number of tariffs have been simplified. I pay tribute to Ofgem, the regulator, for setting up the retail market review, which was helpful, and to the work of hon. Members, including those who serve on the Energy and Climate Committee, which has been very proactive in holding the energy companies to account on tariffs and the price mechanisms in bills.
	A few weeks ago—it seems like a long time ago now—we debated a proposed price freeze. Many people’s reaction was to say that it was a con. In terms of cons by political parties, we have to look closely at what the Prime Minister has said on several occasions about people going on to the cheapest tariff. The reality is that many people are adversely affected by prices. If they are off the gas grid, for instance, they will never get the best deal offered by energy companies because they cannot have the dual fuel discount. Equally, there are people on fixed charges and various other things that are built into the system. However, there is now simplification and the situation is improving regardless of legislation.

Michael Weir: Is not the situation even worse than the hon. Gentleman suggests? Under the legislation, people on pre-payment meters, for example, can never get anything like the lowest tariffs available.

Albert Owen: Absolutely—that was my next point. These people are in vulnerable positions—not only those in houses in multiple occupation but those in rural areas. I know small estates in my area where people have these very high payments and are unable to get the best tariffs. It is a bit of a con. Although we passed the legislation and had those debates, it is worth putting this in its proper context, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

David Hamilton: As regards the price freeze that Labour is proposing, does my hon. Friend agree that a member of any party that does not agree with it, such as the Scottish National party, has to be asked in their constituency why that is?

Albert Owen: The purpose of the proposed price freeze, which is not the main theme of this debate, is to have a pause, take stock, get the regulator to look at the issues and think about future legislation. I believe that we are where we are because of rushed legislation to privatise both gas and electricity, which created the wrong starting point for an energy market.
	Many people on prepaid meters will never be on the cheapest tariff, and that fact was never addressed by the Government when the Energy Act 2013 made its way through Parliament. I want to concentrate on those who are hardest hit by the price discrimination to which the motion refers. They are really struggling with their bills and I make no apology for highlighting that fact time and again. Many of my constituents do not have the best prices. They also have lower incomes and higher transport costs in rural areas, which all adds up to a cost of living crisis.

Caroline Dinenage: The inflexibility of the prepayment system means that many families end up having to go to a shop to prepay. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, rather than have the Government compel the energy companies, those companies should use their initiative and take the profits from over-inflated prices to invest in new and more flexible ways for people to make their prepayments?

Albert Owen: The hon. Lady makes a good point. I think that the onus is on the energy companies, but it is also on the Government and the regulator. It is a heavily regulated market and the regulator has a role to play. The point I was making—I will move on from it in a moment—was about cons: it was incorrect to make bold statements to the people of this country, while legislation was making its way through Parliament, that they would be put on the lowest tariff.

David Simpson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole issue of direct debit payment hits the most vulnerable in our society and that the threatening nature of the correspondence from these organisations puts a lot of fear into the elderly in particular?

Albert Owen: Yes, and that is why I support the motion, which deals with that very issue. A high percentage of people choose not to pay by direct debt—I will come to the question of choice later—but others have no choice, and they are the ones who feel most threatened.

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a bit of a con to ask people to shop around for a lower tariff? It is about time we had a proper inquiry into the energy companies, particularly the way in which they operate as a cartel. Only a week or two ago, I watched a television programme in which the regulator admitted that it could only advise companies to lower prices and that it could not impose such a measure.

Albert Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right to refer to the regulator’s lack of teeth and its lack of willingness to use the powers it already has. That is an important point.
	Some people say, “It’s a free market. Why should we over-regulate it?” They would also oppose the motion’s suggestion that the Government should consider introducing a cap, but it is important to realise that we have been here before. There is no doubt that the price of energy rose considerably between 2006 and 2008. Ofgem undertook an energy supply probe and agreed to place a licence condition on the energy companies to ensure that different segments of the customer base did
	not face undue price discrimination. This motion—I am certain that the hon. Member for Harlow will make this point more accurately than me, because he has done a lot of research on the issue—does not ask for very much, only to return to the position we were in previously. The licence condition that Ofgem introduced in 2008 after its energy supply probe lasted three years. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) has hit the nail on the head. We have been here before and Ofgem has the ability to address the issue.
	My party has talked about having a new body to put consumer rights at the top of the bill. The opening line of Ofgem’s website states that it is there “to protect the interest” of the customer. In this case, I believe that it is failing, and falling short of what it should do on behalf of the consumer. I am very pleased that my party now considers that off-grid customers need the same protection as those on the mains gas grid, so that everybody in the United Kingdom is treated fairly in relation to energy and can have somebody to fight on their side.
	Hon. Members have intervened about those who are hurt most by direct debit payments. I confess that I pay my utility bills by a mixture of direct debits and good old quarterly payments on paper—

Kate Hoey: Using the post office.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was my next point—that I use the services of my local post office to pay my energy bills, which helps the local community in many ways. We get drawn into using direct debits, because it is a little bit cheaper, but sometimes there is extra social value from using other methods.

Sheila Gilmore: My hon. Friend has rightly explained how we can exercise choice and use other options, but such a choice is very limited for many people. He might be interested to know that in a recent pilot for direct payments of housing benefit, my local housing association found that many people did not want to get involved in such things as direct debits, because of bad experiences of payments coming out at the wrong time.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that that issue will be addressed again as the Consumer Rights Bill goes through Parliament. I can remember a time when cash was cool. People went in on time and paid their bill in cash, and that was considered a good method of payment. Today, people are being penalised for exercising that very choice.
	The hon. Member for Harlow has singled out companies in his early-day motions, but many companies have good practices. For instance, my supplier gives an early payment bonus to people who pay early by cheque or cash, or in other forms. There are mechanisms that can be used, but they need to be adopted by the whole industry.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. Does he not recognise that some companies claw money back, because they now charge for sending out paper bills?

Albert Owen: Yes.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. A lot of Members are waiting to speak. I know that the hon. Gentleman is coming towards the end of his speech, which is heading towards 15 minutes.

Albert Owen: I was dragging out my speech, because some hon. Members had not arrived in the Chamber. That explains the slowness of my opening remarks, but I am now getting to the crux, if not the end, of my argument. The points made in interventions are important: people do not choose to be in such a position, but some are, and there should be a mix of payment methods.
	Those who use buzzwords about a free, open and liberal market are missing the point. Much of the energy we consume involves fixed costs over which companies have argued in the past few months that they have no real control. I am talking about such matters as commodity prices and transmission costs. Companies should be fairer in how they bill people, and should not penalise people or discriminate against them through their payment methods.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned the choice to switch. To be honest, it is very perverse that energy companies and the Government push switching. No other sector of industry says, in a competitive market, “If you don’t like what we do, go somewhere else.” Can we imagine supermarkets adopting that policy?
	I want energy companies to give loyalty bonuses to people who stay with them as long-term customers, rather than tampering with their accounts and penalising them for how they pay. I am told by energy companies—I have no reason to dispute this—that the regulator does not allow it. We should look at that, and if we had the proper review called for in the motion, the regulator would have to consider such issues and help people by alleviating the effects of the high percentage increases of the past few weeks.
	The motion is about Ofgem doing its job and standing up for the consumer, the Government being on the side of the consumer, and us, as a Parliament, being on the side of the people we were sent here to represent.

Robert Halfon: After the debate, I think that I will enter the Olympics because I do not think that I have ever walked so fast in my life as when this debate started slightly early.
	I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen)—I call him my hon. Friend on purpose—not only because he has campaigned on this issue for far longer than I have and since before I was even in this House, but because he was a huge support in tabling the motion and in going to the Backbench Business Committee. I also thank him for his speech.
	I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and all those who came with me to the Backbench Business Committee, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is winding up the debate and has done an enormous amount of work on this issue. I also thank the 177 Members who have signed the motion, making it one of the best supported
	Back-Bench motions in the history of such motions. That reflects the fact that this is an all-party issue and not just a Conservative issue, a Labour issue or a Unionist issue.
	Organisations, such as Which?, have done a huge amount of work to promote consumer rights in this field and they keep me posted on what is happening. We must remember that Which? has led a campaign on this matter for quite a long time.

Mark Spencer: I am sure that the House will recognise that my hon. Friend is a tremendous campaigner—an award-winning campaigner—on these matters. I think that it is worth putting that on the record at the start of his comments.

Robert Halfon: I am proud to call my hon. Friend a friend and I appreciate his remarks.
	It is no secret that consumers are feeling hard pressed. The cost of utility bills has gone up exponentially in the past three years. Since 2007, the average electricity bill has gone up by 20% in real terms and gas bills have gone up by a shocking 43%, proving that they are major burden on the cost of living. Citizens Advice has warned that energy bills are rising at up to eight times the rate of earnings. It is no surprise that polling shows that the rising cost of energy bills is a top concern for the British public.
	I welcome the efforts that the Minister and the Government have made to help, including by forcing companies to put consumers on the lowest possible tariff, providing a rebate to every domestic electricity customer, reducing bills by £130 for 2 million of the poorest households and protecting pensioners’ cold weather payments. However, with price increases, companies making large profits and general dissatisfaction with energy companies across the United Kingdom, it is clear that the energy market is not working at its prime.
	The payment of energy bills by direct debit is often associated with companies overestimating a household’s energy usage, resulting in overcharging and a large amount of credit being built up. Understandably, that upsets many customers and it has rightly received a lot of attention from the media.

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is a huge consumer champion, not just on this issue, but on many others. More power to his elbow. He makes a good point about the way in which direct debits work. They are not a panacea. Last week, I received an e-mail from my constituent, Mr Balfour, who told me that his 87-year-old father had built up a £1,400 credit because he was paying by direct debit. According to Ofgem, direct debits are meant to be set on a fair and reasonable basis. Does my hon. Friend share my view that we should define in more detail what “fair and reasonable” means?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point, and I suspect that the Minister will have more to say about it. I welcome the fact that the Government are forcing companies to compensate customers, such as his constituent, who have been mis-sold or overcharged. I know that the Department of Energy and Climate Change has asked Energy UK to set up direct debit best practice guidelines.
	The problems associated with customers not paying their gas and electricity bills by direct debit have largely been ignored, even though it can end up costing consumers significantly more. Unlike the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, who has known about the problem for some time, I first became aware of it only a few weeks ago. A pensioner in my constituency told me that she had received a letter from Co-operative Energy saying that because she was not paying her bills by direct debit, she would be charged £63 a year extra. I could not believe it—I wondered how on earth such a thing could happen, given that she had gone to the post office religiously to pay on time. I thought, “That is a lot of money”, so on the Monday, I rang up Co-operative Energy and spoke to the general manager, who was very pleasant. He said, “Actually, ours is one of the lowest”. There I was thinking that £63 was a lot of money.
	I decided to investigate every single energy company, and the results were shocking. Of the 26 companies that responded, five only allowed their customers to pay by direct debit and 17 charged their customers different rates depending on the method that they used to pay. Only four companies charged their consumers the same whether or not they paid by direct debit. In a euphemism extraordinaire, many of the companies that charged extra said not that they were adding a surcharge but that they were discounting the bills of people who used direct debit, because there were lower costs.

Jim Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has been a great champion of a lot of energy issues over the past two or three years, for which I pay him tribute.
	It strikes me that we must have a good look at how energy companies are structured and at the powers that the regulator has. I am not convinced about the regulator. I do not want to be party political—we are trying to get a consensus tonight—but does the hon. Gentleman share my hope that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will examine the motion tonight? There have been strong stories in the press that the Government are going to abolish the winter fuel allowance. I do not know whether that is true or false, but we hope that the message will get through to the Minister responsible in one way or another.

Robert Halfon: I want more money to go to the poorest pensioners, including the winter fuel allowance. I do not believe that millionaires or people with earnings of more than £100,000 should get winter fuel payments, and I would rather they went to the poorest.

Charlie Elphicke: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech. Does he agree that when people are in credit, interest should be paid at a proper rate? Does he believe that the reason why balances creep up is that bill models are too opaque, and that a filling station-type model might be better?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am sure the Minister has heard his remarks.

Philip Davies: I totally understand my hon. Friend’s point, but my only concern about the thrust of his arguments is that people are being charged less for paying by direct debit rather than being charged more for not doing so. If we stop that differential
	payment scheme, energy companies might equalise charges upwards rather than downwards and charge everybody more for their bills, in which case nobody will benefit and some people will lose out even though everyone will be paying the same.

Robert Halfon: I thank my hon. Friend, with whom I have discussed the issue. I will come on to it later, so I hope he will bear with me for a moment.
	Some companies’ levies are extraordinary. I spoke last night to the managing director of Spark Energy, which says that it has a special tariff system and that the majority of its customers are tenants. Some 10,000 of Spark’s 80,000 customers, those who do not pay by direct debit, are charged up to £390 a year extra. The managing director told me that that was purely down to costs. I will make this point later, but what is to stop another company coming along and saying, “It’s £450 or £500 and that is down to costs”? We need transparency.
	Let me make three points: first, I believe that these charges effectively act as a stealth tax on the poor; secondly, I want to rebut the arguments used by energy companies to defend such practices; and thirdly, I will say what I think the Government should do about them.
	The excessive charges often hit those we should protecting the most, and just like my constituent, it is often the elderly who are affected. Many pensioners do not like paying by direct debit because they want to be in control of their finances. Over the past few weeks I have been inundated with letters from pensioners. One said:
	“We are from the old school—brought up to put our bills money away every week. Never to be in debt. But because we prefer not to have direct debit, we are punished.”
	Another wrote that
	“as members of the older generation, we are very aware that keeping a careful eye on budgets and control of finances is very important, and we have always been in favour of paying bills as and when they arise—budgeting year by year for increases and ensuring that we have money to cover such expenses. In this way we avoid becoming overdrawn and incurring bank charges.”
	That is exactly the sort of fiscal responsibility we should encourage, and it is not exclusive to pensioners.
	Understandably, anyone on a low income might be concerned that a direct debit could be taken at a moment when they are not able to pay for it. They might be waiting to get paid a day later, for example, and missing a direct debit payment would incur a heavy bank charge. It also does not take into account those who struggle to get access to proper banking facilities. Some 1.9 million households in the UK do not have a current account and there is no facility for them to have an overdraft. Half a million of those households do not even have access to a basic bank account that can accept direct payments. Such people are incredibly vulnerable and have very little choice over their payment methods, yet they are being penalised for that and are often those who can afford it least.
	This is not just about finances because, crucially, many people, particularly the elderly—certainly in my constituent’s case—enjoy the social aspect of going to the post office to pay their bills. Many pensioners have contacted me to say that they do not trust direct debits and feel that companies discriminate against them because they cannot use computers. As one person rightly pointed out, direct debits and credits are always susceptible to
	human error on the part of the recipient, and mistakes take an enormous amount of time to sort out. All echelons of society should be catered for, not just computer and smartphone users, credit card holders and the technologically literate generation.

William McCrea: rose—

Marcus Jones: rose—

Robert Halfon: I will give way to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) who represents a party that has been enormously supportive on this issue.

William McCrea: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the effort he is making on this important issue. The motion before us reminds us that more than 1 million people in the UK do not have access to a bank account. Surely that points to the fact that energy companies are penalising the weakest and most vulnerable people in society.

Robert Halfon: The hon. Gentleman is right, and even worse, those companies justify the charges by saying that they are because of the cost of pursuing non-payers. In essence, the poorest and pensioners who pay on time are paying for companies to pursue non-payers or late-payers.

Marcus Jones: My hon. Friend is a true consumer champion. Does he agree that the same principle exists for many people who have not got access to the internet and are penalised for asking their supplier for a paper bill and charged a levy as a result?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is right, as he will understand as I continue my remarks.

Dan Byles: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Is he aware of any studies or work that looks at exactly how the burden of this problem falls on different income distribution groups? If such work is not available, does he think that Ofgem, or possibly the Department of Energy and Climate Change, should commission it so that we can see exactly where the burden of this disparity falls on different income deciles?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that Which? has done an enormous amount of work, as have other organisations and the Keep Me Posted campaign. I am sure the Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s remarks.
	How do some of the energy companies justify these fees? First, they claim, amazingly, that the fees they charge are proportionate. Under Ofgem’s licensing conditions to energy companies, they are required to ensure that what they charge is reflective of cost. As I have said, I have no problem with a small administrative charge to reflect the extra cost companies face in processing a cheque, but many companies offer a paperless discount of approximately £6 per annum, implying that the cost of letters is £6. Keep Me Posted, after discussions with mailshot companies, has revealed that the cost of printing letters, staff cost, postage and printing is 19p per item. I
	would therefore question how some companies have concluded that sending out letters can cost up to £15, and whether that is truly proportionate. It is also worth noting that some companies, such as Good Energy and Green Energy UK, do not charge their customers anything different based on their preferred type of payment, believing that customers should not be penalised for how they choose to pay.
	Secondly, the companies argue that they should charge more owing to the cost of providing credit to customers. Of course, I understand that when one pays for something retrospectively there is an extra cost, but, as I have said, it is also worth pointing out that some companies that charge retrospectively do not charge anywhere near as much as the big utility companies. BT is not my favourite company. Nevertheless, it bills customers retrospectively for the calls they make, yet charges just £2 a month to customers who do not pay by direct debit. There is no extra charge for any customers who are on a low income and therefore qualify for the BT basic service. I praise BT for making a commercial decision not to rip off their customers and to charge just £2 a month. I believe that companies should be able to meet some of these extra costs themselves. Because of the nature of direct debit payments, customers often pay too much.

Kate Hoey: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his articulate outlining of the case. He mentions BT. His ten-minute rule Bill next week covers a much wider area, because it is clearly not just the energy companies that do this. Does he not agree with me that a basic principle should be that if someone has a bill and they want to pay it in cash, they should not be charged a penny extra for doing so?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies to that intervention, may I remind him that the Backbench Business Committee recommends 10 to 15 minutes for opening speeches? He is not making an opening speech, but he is being allowed that time. That 10 to 15 minutes does not allow extra time for interventions. He has been very generous, but a lot of Members wish to speak. I would be grateful if he could now draw his remarks to a conclusion.

Robert Halfon: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will do my best.
	The third claim is that the cost differential—coming on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—is due to the discount that companies offer customers who pay by direct debit. Indeed, many energy companies I spoke to told me that what they actually offered was a discount to encourage customers to use direct debit. However, if companies are using discounts to attract customers, it seems possible that they are using non-direct debit paying customers to subsidise these accounts—the point I made earlier. Differences in price should therefore be called a premium, rather than a discount, which can be misleading. Calling a difference of £390 a discount is like calling a mortuary a negative patients output. Any price savings must be proportional and must be communicated transparently to the customer.
	The fourth claim is that the cost is reflective of the fact that those who do not pay by direct debit are more of a risk for non-payment. I have seen the cost breakdown
	of some companies that shows how much this adds on to the extra charge. Roughly, it makes up about half. Returning to some of the people I quoted at the beginning of this speech, all of them said that they pay on time without fail. Why should they pay more because of other people’s mistakes?
	The fifth claim—I am nearing the end of my remarks—is that introducing a cap on what companies can charge consumers would result in everyone’s prices going up. That should not be the case, and the suggestion that it would push up prices is symptomatic of an energy market that is not as competitive as it should be. Energy companies should be fighting to keep these charges as low as possible to hold on to as many customers as they can. It tends to be the smaller companies that charge the least or do not differentiate between payment types. I am pleased that the Government are encouraging new entrants to the market, but in the short term I believe that a moderate cap on fees charged is the answer.
	In conclusion, I am not against energy companies. I believe in business, but I believe in fair business, not the juggernaut of the big corporation. That is why I urge the Government, first, properly to investigate these charges and reassure customers that their bills are proportionate and that they are not being hoodwinked. Any companies whose charges are not found to be proportionate should be subject to a fine or windfall tax, with all the money being passed back to the consumer. Secondly, there should be fundamental reform of the system. As I have suggested, late fees should be for those who pay late—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. It is now three minutes since I asked the hon. Gentleman to conclude his remarks. There is going to be a tight time limit. When I say “conclude”, I normally mean a couple of sentences. I realise he has a lot to say, but to say it within the time is always the challenge in the House. Will he please give us his last two short sentences, otherwise I will just sit him down?

Robert Halfon: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Finally, a cap should be introduced on the amount a customer can be charged. We need transparency, a cap on charges and fundamental reform.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I must inform Members that there will be an eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions. It might be necessary to shorten it, but let us see how we go.

Yvonne Fovargue: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and all the Members who have supported this important debate.
	We are all paying a lot more for our energy. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, energy prices have increased eight times faster than earnings since 2010. It affects us all but impacts on lower-income households far more, not just because they have less to spend generally, meaning that any rise in the price of everyday goods and services hits them harder, but because they pay more than better-off households for their heating and
	power—many poorer households pay for their light and heating using prepayment meters. That is the area on which I want to concentrate.
	People with prepayment meters have more expensive tariffs than direct debit customers. Citizens Advice calculates that meters add £100 a year to the average bill, which is a lot of money for someone on a low income already stretched by the rising prices of other household essentials. It is no wonder, then, that StepChange debt charity has recorded a 129% rise, between 2010 and 2013, in the number of clients in electricity arrears and a 114% rise in gas arrears.
	We can all understand why energy companies want customers to pay their bills by direct debit—it is easier for them and cheaper—and many of us do pay that way, but 45% of households do not, according to Which?. In fact, more than 7 million people in the UK pay for their gas and electricity by prepayment meter, and that figure has been rising in recent years. It is not right that less well-off families are being penalised for using this payment method. There are many reasons households choose not to pay by direct debit: they might not have a bank account; they might be wary of falling into arrears; they might have been put on a meter by the energy company for past arrears; or they might simply have inherited the meter from a past tenant in their flat or house.

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about prepayment meters. I have been contacted by a constituent who wants to get off her prepayment meter. She has just been made redundant and is facing a big cost of living crisis in her own life, but to come off the meter will cost her £195, because Scottish Power charges £45 for a home visit by an inspector and then expects her to come up with a further £150 for a credit check. She will get that back if she passes, but she is still expected to find £195 just to come off the prepayment meter, which she wants to do to reduce her energy costs. Is that not another example of how these charges are a penalty on the poorest?

Yvonne Fovargue: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I was coming to that very point. The company I spoke to charges £50 for removal, or a deposit, and as my hon. Friend says, a credit check is payable by the person who wants to change their meter.
	The other issue is that many people on prepayment meters are not aware of the tariff they are on, particularly if they moved into the accommodation with the meter already in place. In a recent survey by Stratford-upon-Avon citizens advice bureau, only 7% of gas users surveyed and 12% of electricity users knew the name of their supplier and the tariff they were on. This state of affairs is not helped by the fact that prepayment users receive only an annual statement. They do not receive quarterly statements. They receive an annual statement, which makes it impossible for them to monitor their expenditure, their deductions and their energy use on a regular basis. Crucially, many do not know that in addition to the energy cost, they are having a daily standing charge deducted from what they pay. Many people believe that all the money they put in goes to fuel, but if they try to economise in the warmer weather by not topping up their card, they easily build up arrears of the standing charge, and that plays havoc with the household budget.
	The situation is made worse by emergency credit, which is often accessed by pressing the special button on the meter. In the Stratford-upon-Avon survey 67% of people used emergency credit in colder weather, but most did not realise that the deduction for the standing charges and arrears cease when they go on emergency credit, and are then taken off when they next top up. I have seen people at the citizens advice bureau who have topped up £10 but have had almost £5 of that go on their standing charge. That plays havoc with the household bills. If the money cannot be found, the prepayment user is left without light, heating or cooking facilities. In the Stratford-upon-Avon survey 30% of the clients who answered the survey had a long-term limiting health condition. These are the people we are leaving without heat, light or cooking facilities.
	Prepayment meters are often presented as an effective budgeting tool for low-income households, and—this sounds quite benign—people self-disconnect. But they do not self-disconnect: they simply do not have the money to top up or they cannot get to the shop to do it. The reality is that the meters themselves are contributing to the increased debt problem. The highest fuel poverty rate by payment method is among households that pay for their fuel using a prepayment meter.
	Energy companies need to stop discriminating against prepayment meter users and accept that there are good reasons why people are reluctant or unable to pay by direct debit. They need to ensure that prepayment meter customers have access to and knowledge of the various tariffs on offer, and that they get the best energy deals. There is a lot of talk about consumer choice, but for many on prepayment meters there is often no choice, unless the choice is between eating or heating. The energy companies need to respect their prepayment clients—they are customers, after all—and ensure that they have real control over their expenditure and energy use.

Ian Swales: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who has led the charge, and to all the other Members who supported his motion today. The debate has already shown that there is no monopoly of concern in one part of the House—we are all concerned about this. I heard the calls for extra analysis of the issue, but there is no doubt that we are talking about an issue that largely affects the poorer part of the community. We could analyse it to death, but we all know intuitively what is going on.
	I worked in the electricity industry way back in the 1970s. I was probably around at the start of the discount for direct debit schemes. We always used to do our marketing campaigns in the spring. Why? Because that allowed us to pile up credit through the summer, which helped to finance the business. There is no doubt that companies are doing that. We always used to aim to hit the exact average over the 12 months, but some companies seem to be looking to build up credit over the 12-month period by assuming extra usage. That practice ought to be stopped. Back in those days we used to give people an incentive of £2 or £3 a quarter for paying by direct debit. I am staggered by the size of the so-called incentive
	that is around now. It seems to be way out of line with any measure of actual costs. Of course, we have additional things now, such as discounts for online bills, which can add up to a fair amount, so there are many ways in which those without direct debit facilities or the internet are being penalised.
	However, I want to follow on from the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who made a good speech about prepayment meters. Rather like the hon. Member for Harlow, I had this issue brought to my attention just a couple of weeks ago. I was aware there was an issue, but I did not know how big it was until a constituent of mine called Frank Harrison claimed he was spending an extra 25% by having a prepayment meter. I found that staggering, but sure enough, when I did a bit of digging, I found that that was roughly the figure. I heard the figure of £100 from Citizens Advice. However, I have checked the three biggest comparison websites, which estimate the difference at between £160 and £300 extra for having a prepayment meter, and we are talking about people who largely cannot afford any extra.
	I understand the history. As an accounting trainee, I remember going round with a meter collector with gigantic bags of silver coins, which he had to keep shipping to a bank. The costs of prepayment meters used to be serious when somebody had to be sent round collecting money frequently. However, we do not have that now; we have pre-payment cards. The risks of default are minimal. Prepayment meters also used to be a big target for theft, but not any more, and the energy companies are getting their money in advance, so the excuse that the costs of prepayment meters are much higher starts to fall away, given that people have to pay for the energy before they use it. Therefore, by definition the bad debts will be nil.
	I join other Members in calling for transparency. It is inexcusable that these companies appear to be able to differentiate however they like, whenever they like and to any degree they like. The concept of a cap, which we heard about from the hon. Member for Harlow, is an extremely good start, but I would like to go further. Through policies such as the energy company obligation, the Government already require energy companies to do things—in that case to do with insulation—for the poorer sections of the community. Given the cost of energy, it is high time that companies were required to do more—to get involved not just in insulation, but in levelling the playing field between different methods of payment, particularly when it comes to prepayment meters, and to bring down the direct debit difference, if it is to exist, to a very low level. I would favour the Government saying, “Along with the ECO, we expect you to provide the lowest cost tariffs, whatever the method of payment.”

Jake Berry: I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend would want to publicise the fact that uSwitch now offers a paper switching service. Some of the people on the most expensive tariffs can be the elderly and the vulnerable—the people least likely to want to go on the internet to change user. This excellent debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) is a good opportunity to publicise uSwitch’s paper switching campaign.

Ian Swales: I would not necessarily want to support any particular commercial organisation, but I recognise the bid that the hon. Gentleman makes and I certainly support the idea of switching. He is absolutely right that anyone who wants to get the best deals these days has to have a bank account—and pay by direct debit—and has to be online to get the discounts and switch easily. They certainly do not want to have a prepayment meter. All that militates against the poorest part of our community.

David Mowat: I agree with my hon. Friend that the current practice militates against the poorest people. His example of the ECO is rather a good one, because it involves the Government putting the onus on companies to do something. The only thing that bothers me a little, however, is that what is being suggested might imply a levelling of the bill upwards, as it does with the ECO, although that might be a reasonable thing to happen.

Ian Swales: What I am suggesting is really an averaging process. We expect better-off consumers effectively to pay for various measures nowadays, and I think we should ensure that they help the poorer members of the community in this instance by levelling the playing field between the different tariffs. I hope that the Minister will respond to that suggestion.

Siobhain McDonagh: I shall not detain the House for the full eight minutes. I just want to tell Members about an event that I organised in my constituency in January 2012.
	I had begun to notice that that more and more people were coming to my surgeries to talk about their difficulties in paying their bills. When I started to talk to people who were in debt about what their debts were, arrears of gas and electricity were appearing ever higher on the list. I started writing to charitable trusts, particularly those attached to British Gas and other large suppliers, in an attempt to help those people.
	In order to draw attention to the issue, I organised a gas and electricity advice day in my constituency. It was attended by representatives of the big six, Co-operative Energy—which was very new at that point—debt advice agencies, the Royal British Legion, and other bodies that do good work out there to help people. It was also attended by representatives of uSwitch, because I thought that my constituents were, in the main, not people who would know how to go about switching. I thought that it would be anathema to them. After all, few of us who get up and go to work each day want to spend hours trying to decide on an alternative energy supplier. uSwitch was inundated on the day. People—they were mainly elderly, and mainly members of particular ethnic minorities—brought their bills, and cautiously went to talk to the uSwitch representatives. I observed that no one trusted their suppliers to stick to a better deal if they managed to secure one, or felt confident that the wool would not be pulled over their eyes.
	We held eight question and answer sessions on a rolling basis with Audrey Gallacher, who at the time was director of energy at Consumer Focus. At the beginning of each session, the same two issues were raised—and 430 people were there that day. Some said, “We know that we are paying more because we do not
	pay by direct debit, but we do not trust our supplier. We do not want it to have access to our bank account. We would be in economic meltdown if the supplier took large sums from us, so we do not want it to have access to our account. We also know that although we will be racking up credit, because that is the sort of people we are, the supplier will still increase our direct debit.” Others asked, “How do I know that I am not being wrongly charged? How can I understand my gas bill? Do I need to be an advanced scientist to understand what the unit price is, and how the supplier charges me?” That question arose time after time, and it made me more aware of how people felt. Members of the Caribbean community in my constituency, in particular, did not want to be involved with direct debit.
	Gas and electricity costs are still one of the major sources of continuing debt among those who come to my surgeries. I encountered an amazing case just a few weeks ago. My constituent Mrs Boakye cares for her elderly mother, who has had a stroke, and has four adult children. She won the jackpot when she was given a social tenancy of a four-bedroom house. All her dreams were realised: she was out of the insecurity of the private rented sector. Her only problem was that her supplier, British Gas, then attempted to take £835 from her account to meet her gas bill. I do not know about other Members, but I could not sustain a direct debit of £835. Certainly Mrs Boakye, as a nurse, could not do so. Her account was put in a spin, and all her direct debit payments began to be missed. It took some time for British Gas to agree that it had made a mistake.
	Mrs Boakye is living proof that those who are on tight and limited incomes should not let gas and electricity suppliers have access to their accounts. While that fear and anxiety exist, the people who can least afford it will continue to pay most for their energy.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for bringing this topic to the Chamber through the Backbench Business Committee and for his tireless work on behalf of consumers and the wider community, and I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), too.
	In addressing today’s debate and the motion, which focuses on direct debit payments for electricity bills, we must also take into consideration the current economic situation faced by consumers. People are already paying excessive energy bills. Nearly all the major UK operators increased the cost of annual bills by about 10% last year, while Power NI delivered a staggering 17.8% increase in Northern Ireland. Although the recent jobs and GDP figures for Northern Ireland give some cause for hope, the truth is that this limited recovery is not being felt by families who are faced with higher energy bills, rising petrol costs and real-terms pay cuts. In this economy, every pound matters and that is why today’s debate is so important.
	It is understandable if a company wants to give a discount to customers for paying by direct debit, and that is an entirely valid pricing structure, provided that it reflects the genuine saving to the company of the payment option. However, what is not acceptable is the vast price differential which seems to be prevalent in the current market between customers paying by direct
	debit and those not paying by direct debit. It would seem that those not paying by direct debit are actually paying a penalty to subsidise other customers’ lower bills. That is clearly unacceptable.
	This is not a plain and simple matter of consumer choice. There are over 1 million people in society who do not hold current accounts and who therefore do not have the option of paying by direct debit. Moreover, 45% of all bill payers, including many of those with bank accounts, do not pay using direct debit for a variety of valid reasons. Such people, who are often vulnerable or elderly, should not face a penalty for that. Sadly, the people facing penalties, which can amount to hundreds of pounds a year, are often also those most likely to be facing fuel poverty or for whom such an amount of money would make the biggest difference.

Jesse Norman: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for calling this debate and I apologise for missing the early part of it. The hon. Lady is making a very valuable case. Does she agree that the additional cost to which disadvantaged people are being put by these meters and other payment systems that are not direct debit is grossly disproportionate to the amount of savings that are supposed to be generated for the power company and therefore represents an extortionate extraction of value from the poor member of the public who has to pay for it?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I fully agree with him, because I have seen that, not least in my own community in Northern Ireland.
	Many people are likely to be pushed into financial difficulties by such charges and they often have the least flexibility when it comes to arranging their financial affairs. I support this motion on the simple principle that price structures and options should offer customer choice, not be determined by customer constraint.
	It should also be pointed out that not every company operates in this way. In contrast to Power NI, there is Budget Energy in Northern Ireland. It does not penalise customers for non-direct debit payments. In fact, its cheapest tariff per unit is for prepayment meters. Other companies should be encouraged to consider similar pricing structures that do not penalise certain bands of customers. Again the issues of transparency and equity and fairness come into play.

Bob Stewart: If someone pays their bill promptly, it is unfair that they should be penalised for not using a direct debit. Surely it should be put into law that people who pay their bills when they are asked to do so should not pay a penalty in that way.

Margaret Ritchie: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; nobody should be penalised, and those who are least well-off are being penalised more than anyone else. Energy bills are at very high levels at the moment.
	I am glad that the Prime Minister called last week for a probe into these excessive costs, and that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is to investigate the situation. There is clearly a role for Ofgem there, and I
	will encourage the utilities regulator in Northern Ireland to intervene with Power NI. Any such investigation needs to determine the real cost of the different payment options and the level that should be charged to ensure that one band of customers is not cross-subsidising another.

Jake Berry: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Ritchie: I apologise, but I want to make some progress; I have already taken some interventions, and to take more would be unfair to others.
	As I was saying, we need to determine the level that should be charged to ensure that one band of customers is not cross-subsidising another, particularly when a group of customers with limited financial means is found to be supporting cheaper prices for those who have the luxury of choice. The Consumer Rights Bill to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn referred has a role to play. It offers the perfect opportunity for implementing the measures proposed today, and I would like to ask the Minister if he will now bring it forward.
	We have a separate energy market in Northern Ireland, but I am aware that a similar situation exists there in relation to non-direct-debit charges. I therefore hope for an assurance from the Minister that the review will consider Northern Ireland as well. Will he tell us what discussions have taken place with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland on the matter of energy billing?
	The House knows of the wider issues facing the energy market, and there is clearly a need for sweeping reform, but today’s motion offers the opportunity to commit to a measure that would resolve at least one inequity. That would bring a degree of relief to families and individuals who are hard pressed by the ever-increasing cost of living.

Michael Weir: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate and on amassing such an impressive number of supporters. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing the time for the debate.
	All our constituents have suffered from rocketing energy prices over the last few years. Hard as that is for everyone, it is harder still for those who are unable to access the special deals that are offered by just about all the energy companies. In passing, however, I note that it is not all plain sailing for those who sign up to pay by direct debit, which can involve either a quarterly bill payment or paying a set amount per month. Those who take the quarterly bill payment option do not necessarily have any control over the amount being taken from their bank account, especially if they are out a lot and regularly have estimated bills. That can be a real problem. For those who opt to pay a set amount per month by direct debit, the company will regularly try to increase the amount they pay, whether or not the current amount covers their bills. Any attempt to retrieve an overpayment can result in a long tussle. At any given time, the energy companies are sitting on substantial sums that have been overpaid by customers. These are estimated to be about £2 billion, earning the companies £36 million a year in interest. It is hardly surprising that they keep trying to up the level of people’s direct debits.
	Matters are not helped by the fact that energy companies are often not transparent about the charges that will actually be applied. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) mentioned the fact that many people on prepayment meters did not know what tariff they were on. In recent price rises we were told the average, but that hides a multitude of sins. A constituent, a low energy user, contacted me yesterday regarding the charges levied on his flat. He told me that the unit charge had risen from 7.242p to 10.89p—a rise of some 50%. That is outrageous.
	The crux of the debate is not so much energy prices as social exclusion. Gratifying as it is to give the big six energy companies a well deserved kick, we also need to examine the actions taken by many of our major financial institutions and how they work against people accessing cheaper energy deals. The Minister may be able to do something about energy companies and Ofgem, but we need a cross-governmental effort to look also at how people access finance and bank accounts. The major energy companies all offer better deals if people can pay for their energy by direct debit; Citizens Advice reckons that the average saving is £100 on that paid by people who pay by other methods, although it can be as high as £140. That is great for people who are able to pay by direct debit, but many of those most in need of cheaper energy are the very people unable to pay by direct debit. There can be many reasons for that. Banking exclusion is one such reason, because about 1 million people do not have a bank account. We have all seen in recent years the flight of the banks from rural areas and areas of deprivation, and just the other week many branch closures were announced.

Sheila Gilmore: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but I would like him to comment on it. Many big banks have retreated from things such as basic bank accounts—Barclays is the only one of the major banks still to offer that—so in the past few years things have gone backwards on banking inclusion.

Michael Weir: The hon. Lady is right about that, and I will deal with the matter in a moment.
	Another reason is digital exclusion, because many people do not or cannot access the internet, perhaps because they cannot afford it or they are unable to work a computer because of illness or age. Other people are simply disengaged from any competitive initiatives. Some may lead chaotic lives, whereas others may simply live in privately rented accommodation and move frequently to seek employment, and, thus, cannot enter into the longer-term agreements demanded by many of the direct debit arrangements.
	Today’s debate pack contains an interesting table detailing the percentage of people who pay by direct debit. The figure for the south-east is 63% and the one for my area of north Scotland is 56%. Surprisingly, London’s figure, 41%, is one of the lowest, but that is because of the transient nature of London’s population and the fact that it contains a huge number of houses in multiple occupation and young people living in them. Those things push the figure down.
	Some people are simply wary of getting into debt, especially if they have previously had problems, and they do not want to get into the position where they cannot control exactly when money comes out of their
	accounts and have to juggle their income to ensure that all bills are met. The availability of direct debit arrangements further discriminates against such consumers.
	Let me directly address the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). Anyone who cares to look at banking comparison sites such as MoneySuperMarket.com or money.co.uk will find that data on best buy basic bank accounts show that some managed accounts with niche suppliers, which are supposedly specifically designed to help people with poor credit histories budget, have substantial monthly fees of about £12 to £14; those come up first if people google “basic bank accounts”. By contrast, some of us still, at least for the moment, enjoy free banking, as well as being able to get direct debit payments on our energy. It is also illuminating to look at the discussion forums on some of these sites and at the threads on basic bank accounts. It is apparent that the big banks, some of which still offer basic bank accounts without a fee, try to place people who inquire about basic bank accounts on their basic current accounts, which allow the very overdrafts that many of those seeking basic bank accounts seek to avoid. Such accounts can also sometimes come with swingeing penalties should the limit be exceeded.
	In addition, people may find that the payment card for their basic bank account works only in certain automated teller machines. That makes things difficult, particularly in rural areas, where there may be only one ATM; if it does not happen to be the right one, people cannot access their money. Many people who have had difficulties with banks in the past are also wary of opening basic bank accounts with the same banking group, as they have real concerns that the money that goes into them might be swiped by the banks to clear pre-existing debts. All of that works against taking advantage of direct debit deals.
	The situation is even worse for people who are on prepayment meters. As I have said before, this is one of the rare examples where people are actually penalised for paying in cash up front. Not only can they not access special deals, but the tariff is often higher. Many people who rent privately have no option, as private landlords have often installed prepayment meters. Worse still, when meters are calibrated to recover existing debt, much of the money is taken before energy is provided.
	Those are just a few of the many issues around energy prices. For many people, the advice from successive Governments to switch suppliers or to pay by direct debit simply does not work. I accept that there are additional costs in different types of payments, but the huge disparity in charges shows that the current system is not working. We need real action on the matter and a fairer and transparent charging system. The motion calls for a cap on charges, which is very reasonable. I appreciate that the problem is not all down to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. As I said earlier, I hope that there will be a cross-governmental effort to deal with the problem.

Caroline Nokes: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this important debate. I intend to keep my comments brief, as other Members have covered some of the subjects in
	such depth. However, there is an issue that I wish to raise, pertaining as it does to the south-east. We have just heard from the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) that people in the south-east are more likely to pay their bills by direct debit. However, even in Hampshire, which is a relatively well-developed county, there is a significant problem with broadband access in rural areas, making it hard for people to manage either their banking or energy payments online. As we have heard, it is those who can manage an online account who often get the most preferential rates for their energy bills.
	It is simply too much of a generalisation to say that it is the elderly who are least likely to use the internet to manage their energy bill. There are many silver surfers in my constituency who are happy to use the internet to manage their energy bills and their banking, but they cannot manage them in areas where the broadband speeds are simply not adequate to do so. I speak from some experience; I can manage my own energy account online, but that is because I have relatively rapid broadband speeds at home and can upload the regular requirements of the meter readings that have to be taken. There are plenty of people in my constituency who are still on dial-up, and simply could not dream of uploading anything to the internet via those means. It is important that those who cannot manage their energy bills online should not be discriminated against.
	I want briefly to comment on the issue of refunds. We have repeatedly heard from Members about how their constituents have seen their accounts getting into very high rates of credit. Of course, if someone knows that their account is in credit, it should not be particularly complicated to make contact with the energy company and ask for a refund. However, in the case of direct debits, we can all cite examples of how they are increased year after year. Consumers can find themselves paying more and more without ever being in a position to compare the bill, how much they are paying and how much is in their account. They are often confused by the sheet on the back of their bill, which does not make things transparent.
	In conclusion, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow for his efforts in this area. He is absolutely correct when he says that transparency is the key to the matter.

Sammy Wilson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this debate through the Backbench Business Committee and on the work that he has done on this issue. When we consider the impact of rising energy bills on people across the United Kingdom, every aspect of those increases should be closely examined.
	Northern Ireland has one of the highest levels of energy bills, and we have certainly had the highest increases in recent years. That is the result of a range of issues, including the green energy policies of central Government that add £100 a year to energy bills. On top of that, perverse incentives lead to direct debit increases for consumers.
	That all hits Northern Ireland in a number of ways. First, we have the lowest percentage of people in the United Kingdom paying by direct debit—38% as opposed
	to 55% across the rest of the UK. There are many reasons for that, including a more conservative approach to such things. Fewer people have access to bank accounts and the remoteness of many rural areas means many people cannot pay online. In my constituency, a huge programme is trying to connect people to broadband because of the low level of coverage for thousands of households. Those in remote areas, especially those in the Antrim plateau, do not even have broadband as an option. As a result, 42% of people in Northern Ireland live in fuel poverty. That is exacerbated by perverse incentives that affect how energy bills are structured.

Ian Swales: The hon. Gentleman is talking about perverse incentives. Does he agree that people who have access to the internet and pay by direct debit are those who are most likely to switch, which means that the energy companies have a perverse incentive to give them the lowest tariffs to try to keep them?

Sammy Wilson: They do. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and in most cases those people have the greatest ability to pay for electricity. In Northern Ireland, for example, those who cannot pay by direct debit or online will pay £55 more a year for their energy bill. That is about half the increase they pay as a result of the green subsidies consumers must pay to the energy companies.

Bob Stewart: It seems to me that, from the point of view of an energy company, if people can be put on to direct debit payments, all too often those who can afford it will not challenge their bill—they will just say that it is done and dusted. That is a big advantage for the energy companies.

Sammy Wilson: It is a huge incentive. The figure has already been quoted. People do not query their direct debits and as a result huge surpluses worth £2 billion across the United Kingdom have built up, meaning that people are in effect lending the energy companies money for nothing and those companies reap the interest. Meanwhile, those who cannot afford to or choose for whatever reason not to pay by direct debit must pay extra.
	The companies’ defence is that they have additional costs in dealing with people who do not pay by direct debit. I approached Power NI about that and it identified two additional costs. First, if people pay by cheque, the company pays additional transaction costs. Secondly, if people pay by cheque, even if they pay on time—I did not understand this—the company says that that affects its cash flow. But as long as people pay promptly, whether by direct debit at the end of the month or by cheque at the end of the month, the company’s cash flow is not affected. I do not know what transaction costs the power companies are paying if they have to charge 6% to 8% more when a member of the public pays by cash or cheque. They are certainly not the kinds of transaction costs one would expect in those circumstances.
	What action can be taken? First—a number of Members have mentioned this—the power companies must be more transparent. They cannot simply throw the matter aside and glibly say, “We charge people who do not pay by direct debit extra because we have increased costs.”
	Those costs must be quantified. As I have said, I do not accept that the costs are 6% to 8% higher just because someone chooses to pay at a post office or by sending the power company a cheque.
	Secondly, I believe that there is a role for the regulator, whether Ofgem or, in Northern Ireland, the Utility Regulator. The regulator should be on the side of the consumer. In fact, that is one of its objectives and part of its remit. However, when I contacted the Utility Regulator about the cost disparity, I received a letter that might as well have been written by the power company. Indeed, the power company probably would have given a better explanation, rather than the few lines I received from the Utility Regulator. There was no challenge function, no querying of the differences in costs, and no seeking of additional information. It simply stated the differences, which I already knew, and the reasons for them, but there was no indication of whether that would be challenged.
	I also believe that there is a role for the Government in this, whether through the Consumer Rights Bill, which is currently going through the House; by encouraging the regulator to act by digging more deeply into the reasons given by the power companies; or indeed, as has been suggested, by finding find ways of increasing competition, which of course would give consumers more options.
	It is striking that some of the smaller companies, which are hungry for customers, do not face those additional costs. In fact, some of them do not impose additional charges at all. That is why I cannot believe that there are such huge cost differences for the larger power companies. Perhaps that is the good impact of competition. Why do some companies find that there are huge costs resulting from people paying in a particular way and other companies do not? Or is it that the smaller companies are hungry for customers and wish to compete? If that is the case, I think there is a lesson for the Government: the more competition we have in the power industry, the more chance we have of addressing these issues.
	I thank the House for listening to my arguments and the hon. Member for Harlow for securing the debate. I trust that some good will eventually come from this to help those who are on the bottom rung when it comes to their ability to pay their power bills each month.

Brooks Newmark: I had not intended to speak, but I have been moved to make a couple of points and did not want to take up hon. Members’ time by intervening. I would first like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on bringing this important matter to the House’s attention and ensuring that we have time to debate it. I also congratulate the Government on at least beginning to tackle it by starting the process of simplifying tariffs, rather than continuing with the confusing situation we had before. That is important, because Opposition Members failed to tackle the problem during their 13 years in government.
	Many elderly people in my constituency are suffering from the cold. The problem is exacerbated by two issues: fairness, which is the point of this debate, and transparency. On fairness, as many Members have said, it is extremely unfair that those who have the ability or
	capability to pay by direct debit should be favoured in one way or another over those who may not have that ability or capability and pay by more traditional means by simply getting their bill, writing a cheque, and putting it in the post. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said, someone who pays their bills on time in that way should be rewarded in the same way as any other person who pays their bills on time.
	The point about transparency is more subtle. When people, particularly the elderly, look at their paperwork, the writing is almost microscopic when it comes to the detail of the terms of reference and, more importantly, the penalties. Moreover, the language used is extremely complicated, often involving jargon. It would be good if a working group, perhaps through the regulator or even internally in this House, could address the simple issue of trying to use simple language to communicate with consumers. Many consumers get baffled by the language used about the terms they are being told they must sign up to. If they understood the language, perhaps they would not suffer so many penalties.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on his crusading efforts on many issues in this House. He has talked about fuel costs in the past, and now he has turned to energy bills and tariffs. I commend him for his energetic investigation across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ascertain the charges and costs that are involved.
	This is a very pertinent issue. I am sure that many hon. Members’ constituents are facing the same difficulties as mine. In July, Northern Ireland’s biggest energy company, Power NI, increased its household electricity bills by 17.8%, which meant that the average household supplied by the company paid an extra £90 per year. There was a lot of disquiet across the whole of Northern Ireland about that increase. While it might be an inconvenience to many people, and to many others it might mean the sacrifice of a luxury to cover the difference, for some of the elderly in my constituency it will mean that they have to make the choice between a bit of heat or something to eat. This debate could have been entitled, “Heat or Eat?” For some of the people I represent, and some of those we all represent in this House, it is as specific and dire as that.

Bob Stewart: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the charges in Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, seem to go up proportionately more than in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Jim Shannon: I wish I had the answer to that question, but I do not. My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) both said how much more expensive the charges are in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend outlined, the Utility Regulator in Northern Ireland does not seem to have the teeth that are needed to ensure that companies reduce their prices. We need to address these issues. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but unfortunately I do not have the answer that we would very much wish to have.

William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend agree that across the United Kingdom, until the present time, the energy companies have, in many ways, got away with the additional charges? I trust that the exposure brought about by this debate will assist in doing something about that.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, which clearly highlights the issue that we are all trying to bring to the Minister’s attention.
	I want to speak particularly for the elderly people in my constituency and across the whole of the United Kingdom. At the Belfast pensioners parliament, Age Sector Platform gave a horrifying statistic: the number of winter excess deaths in Northern Ireland in 2012 was 486. Almost 500 people died because of their exposure to the winter weather. All of them were aged over 65, so we clearly need to address that age category. It is clear that older people are being hit hardest by the rising cost of energy and their reduced incomes. The energy providers must ensure that the elderly are on the cheapest tariffs possible. That is not happening. Even when they are told of the advantages, the language is so complicated they cannot understand it. We would do well to be able to understand it ourselves.
	A good starting point would be to remove the charge for those who do not pay by direct debit. The simple fact is that many elderly people prefer to pay by cash or cheque, not by direct debit. Although it is simple for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and sometimes even for me, to use online banking, it is clear that it is not as simple for elderly people, who should not be penalised to the tune of £114 a year just because they like to collect their pension from the post office. I underline the point made by the hon. Member for Harlow about the social contact that elderly people enjoy in the post office when they pay their bills by cash, rather than by direct debit. Many do not have regular visitors, so that social contact means much to them and its importance cannot be underlined enough.
	I am a former business owner and I much preferred it when customers paid cash, for no other reason than that it meant I would get my money! Indeed, at times I would offer a small discount—or even a big one—as an incentive for that payment method. Now another option applies and the people who are hit hardest are those least able to afford it.
	Northern Ireland—this point has not been made yet—does not have access to all of the alternative sources of energy. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and I have discussed the fact that parts of Northern Ireland and my constituency do not have access to gas. I wish they did. Many of my constituents on the Ards peninsula and in Ballygowan, Saintfield and Ballynahinch would love gas to be introduced to the area, and perhaps that will happen one day.
	Our food bank in Newtownards is also involved in running the Christians Against Poverty scheme to help people who have debts to get on top of their issues and live on a budget. More and more people are deciding to get help to control their finances.

Gregory Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that Christians Against Poverty has had to involve itself with more and more people, particularly elderly and vulnerable people, in Northern Ireland and across the UK precisely because
	of the impersonal way in which many of the power companies deal with those who get into financial difficulties?

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. How true that is in my constituency and others across the whole of the United Kingdom.
	Two months ago a new Christians Against Poverty scheme was set up in Ballynahinch in my constituency and there was great demand for it as a result of the impersonal attitude of some Departments and the complexity of financial matters. People have come together with Christians Against Poverty on the back of the food banks. I am one of the many Members who welcome food banks. I see them as a plus point for many parts of the community. They bring people together who energise themselves to help others who are less well-off, which is a trait we have not seen too much of in society in the past. It is good to see it.
	Time is flying by, so I will move on quickly. Even a 5% reduction to a household budget will make a big difference, and that is why I welcome food banks and the good work of Christians Against Poverty. People are struggling, but the industry is not, and although I am firmly in favour of the free market, I am most certainly not in favour of profiteering, which is what seems to be happening.
	I was horrified to read that the profits of the big six energy companies have shot up by 74% since 2009, dwarfing the 13% rise in inflation. British Gas, E.ON, EDF, npower, Scottish Power and SSE have enjoyed a £3.3 billion surge in profits, while households have been hit by a 29% rise in bills. My goodness, how obscene it is that on one side they are raking it in, and on the other side they are losing out. The word “perverse” was used earlier, and I could not describe it better.
	For many people whose pay has been frozen and for many of those in small businesses whose hours have been cut to allow the owner to stay open, such a situation is a gross injustice. A profit must be made—let me make it quite clear that we are not against profit—but there comes a stage at which we must ask whether enough is enough. Profits from the groups that provide energy to 98% of homes rose from £2.15 billion in 2009 to £2.22 billion in 2010, £3.87 billion in 2011 and £3.74 billion in 2012, while the typical domestic dual fuel bill now stands at £1,420 a year compared with £1,100 in May 2010, according to the regulator, Ofgem. Surely it is time that the energy companies did the right thing by the most vulnerable—the elderly—and used some of their profit margins to provide affordable heating or, at the very least, not to penalise those people who use cash and cheques and do not feel comfortable paying by direct debit. The companies are clearly getting paid, and that, not the method of payment, is what is important.
	As other hon. Members have done, I am putting forward a case on behalf of my constituents that enough is enough and that something must change soon. The question whether to heat or to eat is not one that anyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should have to ask or answer. Although we will do all in our power to help, the many businesses that are seen to be taking advantage must take their place, do their part and help our elderly people.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made a very powerful speech. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and his colleagues on tabling the motion. It has support from all parts of the House, and I am alarmed not to see my name on it. I must have missed the motion for some reason, but I certainly support it fully. I hope that my speech will make up for my name not being on the list of its supporters on the Order Paper.
	The issue of people who do not pay by direct debit sometimes having to pay substantially more is one example of how low energy users—mostly people who are poor and vulnerable, but not always, because people sometimes choose a lifestyle involving low energy use or are fortunate enough not to use a lot of energy—by and large end up paying more than high energy users. That starts from tariffs: we all know that, with some exceptions, tariffs for people who consume more energy are cheaper, while those who use less have higher ones.
	The extra cost for those not paying by direct debit is such an example, and hon. Members have spoken at length about the issues that that raises. Like them, I certainly find it hard to believe that in the vast majority of cases the extra charge levelled on those not paying by direct debit accurately reflects the extra costs to the companies. I rather doubt that it does, but there might be a case if the direct debit discount was a fair reflection of the extra cost that would otherwise fall on companies from people not paying by direct debit. However, the amount and variety of charges indicate that they are certainly more than can in any sense be justified.
	As hon. Members have mentioned, it is wonderful for suppliers to get people on to direct debits because, as we all know, the likelihood that they will move or even think about switching is much less than that of those who are forced into thinking about how much they pay every quarter.
	Colleagues have commented on prepayment meters. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who is not in his place, pointed out that we are not talking about the past situation in which, given the way cash was kept and all the rest of it, prepayment meters involved a major operation. It is now in no sense justifiable for prepayment meter customers to have to pay so much more than other customers, as we all know they do.
	I want to mention the higher standing charges that have come about as a result of the Government’s policies on simplifying tariffs. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who is not in his place, said that the Government have started the process of addressing the issue by simplifying tariffs, but the fact is that Ofgem’s recommendation that companies should effectively have higher standing charges is a result of its attempt to put into practice the Prime Minister’s hastily thought-out policies. In the vast majority of cases, the standing charge is higher than it used to be and the price per unit of energy is lower. I am sure that all Members have had cases of customers who are on low incomes and are low energy users experiencing massive increases in their energy bills. Ofgem says that companies can offer zero standing charges if they want to, but not many have
	done so. There is clearly something very wrong with the way that the market is operating and in how the market changes have operated.
	This issue does not affect just people on low incomes. I saw one example of somebody who spent quite a bit of money on introducing renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. They reduced their energy usage drastically, only to find that their energy bill went up by almost 600% because such a heavy standing charge was levied on a daily basis. That is another example of how those who are low energy users for various reasons suffer because of the way in which the system operates.
	Many of the issues that Members have raised today are not new. The hon. Member for Harlow has performed a valuable service to the House by highlighting the surcharge for non-direct debit payers. However, many of the issues that have been raised today have been brought to the attention of the Government and the regulators time and again. I have raised the issue of standing charges for months. There has been some movement, but not a great deal.
	In the past few weeks, the Government have seen motions passed in Back-Bench business debates, but have then ignored them. Given that today’s motion has support from across the House, I hope that the Government will give a positive indication of the action that they will take on the issues that have been raised. Over the past few winter months, some of the lowest earners and some of the most vulnerable people in our country have yet again suffered because of the bias against them in the energy pricing system. We want to see action for those people and, at the very least, we want to see action before next winter.

Julie Elliott: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and others on securing this important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for offering to move the motion and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for starting the debate in rather unusual circumstances. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to discuss these issues.
	Ever since my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made their announcements on energy at the Labour party conference last year, the way in which the market works or, more accurately, does not work has rightly come under greater scrutiny. Today’s debate is another symptom of that.
	This debate has highlighted one of the essential facts about the energy market: we have not one energy market, but two, with companies targeting the lowest prices at a small section of the market, while charging everyone else whatever they think they can get away with. That is evident when one looks at the difference in prices between customers who pay by direct debit and those who pay by other means. It is also evident when one compares the prices that are paid by loyal customers, by which I mean customers who have never switched, which is the majority of people, with the prices paid by those who have switched. Tariffs should be cost-reflective: any difference for a different type of customer, payment or account—for example, dual fuel versus single fuel—must
	reflect only the costs that are associated with serving those customers and must be justified by the savings that suppliers enjoy.
	Ofgem is responsible for ensuring that that happens. Following its energy supply probe in 2008, it introduced new rules that were designed specifically to prevent such anti-competitive behaviour. There will of course be marginal differences in costs between different payment methods and it is reasonable that there should be a small discount for customers who use cheaper payment methods, such as direct debit. However, what we are seeing is not a small difference but, in some cases, discounts of as much as £100—far and away above what could be reasonably justified. Ofgem has the power to act, but it does not. The Government should be intervening, but they are not.
	The discounts for those on direct debit are not free. They must be paid for by someone. They are therefore being subsidised by those not paying by direct debit. In effect, energy companies are overcharging loyal and, in some cases, vulnerable customers, such as those who do not have access to bank accounts, to pay for deep discounts for the active segment of the market.

Robert Halfon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julie Elliott: No, I do not have much time now.
	The rules on tariffs being cost-reflective are clear, and Ofgem has the power to intervene and stop loyal customers being ripped off, so why has it taken no action, and why have the Government failed to act? My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has repeatedly raised the question of Ofgem’s inaction, yet the Secretary of State has strongly disagreed with her when she has said that Ofgem is not using its powers. Will the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), enlighten the House on whether he is one of the Ministers cited in The Independent last week who have told Ofgem that it is in the last chance saloon and must take immediate action to improve competition? Given that the Secretary of State referred to our plans to replace Ofgem with a regulator that actually stands up for the consumer as “silly”, perhaps it was the Minister of State.
	I say gently to the hon. Member for Harlow, who presented his case with conviction today, that capping the level of discount available to customers who pay by direct debit is probably not the answer on its own. In all likelihood, companies would just reduce the discount, and customers paying by standard credit or prepayment meter would carry on paying exactly as much as they are now. In fact, he alluded to that point when he called for fundamental reform, which is what we propose.
	The practice of overcharging people who do not pay by direct debit, in order to target the lowest prices at the most active end of the market, is part of a broader problem in the energy market. In a vibrant and competitive market, suppliers would compete to give their customers the best deals and the best customer service would reward loyal customers. In our broken energy market, the big companies are overcharging and punishing their most loyal customers. That is why we need Labour’s plans to reform the energy market.
	The plans that we have set out will reintroduce competition, restore transparency and create a tough new energy watchdog that will actually stand up for consumers. We will inject competition by separating energy generation from supply and requiring all energy companies to trade their energy in an open market by selling into a pool. We will reintroduce transparency by establishing a new, simpler tariff structure so that people can compare prices, just as they could before they were made artificially complicated.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) clearly outlined, the Secretary of State may be intensely relaxed about Ofgem’s performance, but the Opposition are not. We will create a tough new regulator with new powers and new leadership, to stand up for consumers. It will have the power to force energy companies to cut their prices when there is evidence that reductions in wholesale costs have not been passed on to consumers, as would happen if the market were functioning in a properly competitive manner, and powers of collective redress.
	Implementing those crucial reforms will take time, which is why, with immediate action upon entering office, we will freeze prices until January 2017, when our reforms will start kicking in. That will save the typical household £120 and the average business £1,800.
	I am pleased that the Minister has come around to the fact that the energy market is broken. He said in an interview last week that he was unaware that three of the big six energy firms were not passing cuts on to fixed-price customers, and that that was unacceptable. He should pay closer attention to detail, because I raised the issue in the House just a few weeks ago, when he was in his place. I welcome his change of heart, but I do not understand how it could have taken him this long to come to that conclusion.
	The Labour party has been clear: we will fix the market and put an end to secret deals and unfair pricing, our new regulator will stand up for consumers, and we will put all over-75s on the lowest tariff. Massive charges for non-direct-debit households are indicative of a broken market, and our reforms will ensure that all consumers get a fair deal under a Labour Government.

Gregory Barker: This has been an excellent debate and there have been thoughtful speeches from Members across the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for bringing this matter before the House and for framing this very real question in his powerful introduction to the debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) who will speak after me. She has joined my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow to bring into close focus an issue that rightly warrants the scrutiny of Members across the House.
	Let me be clear: the coalition Government are doing more than any Government before them to help hard-pressed consumers with the cost of energy bills, and we are fairly, squarely and rightly on the side of British consumers. My hon. Friend has raised legitimate questions about the way that consumers pay for energy by different methods, and the Government want to address that. We
	share the concern that my hon. Friend has put into sharp relief, but it is not a new issue. I am glad to use this debate to tell the House that Ofgem will be looking into the issue as part of the new competition test announced by the Prime Minister, to ensure that energy companies are living up to their obligations and licence requirements, and that the interests of the British consumer are at the heart of the modern energy market.

William McCrea: During the Minister’s remarks, can we get away from having those on the Front Benches make a political broadcast, and deal with the cross-party motion before the House? Will the Minister tell the House—I certainly did not hear this from the Opposition Front Bench—what is happening to the concerns that we as elected representatives have on behalf of our constituents, and which are summarised in the motion?

Gregory Barker: I certainly intend to do that, but I think the hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. I have already mentioned the most important point of the speech, which is that we have asked Ofgem to consider the matter raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and for Chatham and Aylesford, and Members across the House, as part of the new competition test that was brought forward by the Prime Minister towards the end of last year. That will have real teeth and will report within a matter of months, if not weeks. We expect that in the near future, and Ofgem will be tasked to do it.

Robin Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing this debate. I agree with the Minister that it is welcome that Ofgem will look into this matter and at competition, but Government policy is clearly to encourage switching. Will he address the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) about energy companies charging people who want to move from a prepayment meter to a more ordinary tariff, and the outrageous variation in costs that can involve? One of my constituents was quoted between zero and £200 to have a prepayment meter removed. Does that not show that the system is not functioning properly as a competitive market, which is something Ofgem ought to investigate?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is right and it is to his credit that he raises an issue that invariably afflicts the poorest and most vulnerable customers. In most cases, however, those on a prepayment meter can switch to a supplier that will not charge them for coming off it. Even if they are on a prepayment meter, they can still switch supplier.
	It is important that we do not become carried away with the idea that the only response to getting a better deal for consumers is for Government to intervene with a one-size-fits-all solution. We saw what the result of over-regulation was under 13 years of Labour. Ham-fisted over-regulation does not actually benefit the consumer—it created the big six. We saw real choice for the consumer collapse under the previous Government through ham-fisted inappropriate regulation. The real interests of consumers will be served by a renaissance in competition. Relighting the fires of competition under this market will create real competition between energy companies.
	I am glad to tell the House that since the coalition came to power we have seen movement back the other way, correcting the downward slide towards an oligopoly that we saw under the previous Labour Government. We are seeing new entrants to the market and unprecedented switching. In the last two months of 2013, an unprecedented number of customers switched their suppliers, hitting the companies that penalise customers where it hurts. People voted with their wallets and moved to get a better deal. This Government stand for empowered consumers—not just a lucky few, but everyone. We do not want a return to a nationalised industry; we want fair regulation for a fair energy sector.

Caroline Flint: There were plenty of examples in the debate that made it clear that regulations are not being followed on prepayment meters, and that Ofgem is not even using the powers it has. Rather than kicking everything off to the competition review, the Minister should ask Ofgem why on earth it is not enforcing the powers it has. It should stop letting this happen.

Gregory Barker: The right hon. Lady suggests that the competition test, which is new, will be a distant solution and that action is needed in the meantime. The competition test is alive now and we expect the first results shortly. This is not something we are kicking into the long grass; this is live. She raises a legitimate point on prepayment meters, as other Members have from across the House. Do not misconstrue me: this is a serious point and she is right to raise it. The Government take it very seriously.
	We also take seriously the crux of today’s debate: are customers who elect to pay by cash or cheque, by standard payment through the post or at the post office, being unfairly penalised for doing so? That is not the same as saying that everybody should pay the same. I am afraid that there may be a genuine difference of opinion on that point. It is not our view that all customers should pay the same. There should be healthy competition, but—and it is a very important but—the differential between paying by direct debit and paying by cash or cheque should be cost-reflective and cost-reflective only. That is a key element of the licence condition under which energy suppliers operate. It is vital that Ofgem looks at that forensically and in detail, and answers to Ministers who have asked whether that is really happening.

Albert Owen: Will the Minister give way?

Gregory Barker: In just a moment. I want to make some progress and I have to give my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford time to wrap up.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow drilled to the centre of the issue when he raised the fact that Spark Energy is charging a premium of £300-plus. That is staggering. Scottish Power, one of the big six created by the Labour party, is offering a premium—or a discount, depending on which way we look at it—of £99. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) asked why we were not doing anything. We are doing something: there is already a specific ongoing investigation into Scottish Power. This is not just about Scottish Power, however: for npower, that figure is £95. As part of the competition test, we have asked Ofgem to look at all the energy suppliers to ensure genuine cost
	reflection. We want to know why these costs are so much more than those charged by other utilities providers, such as water and telephone companies.

Robert Halfon: My right hon. Friend is right about the costs, but do we not need to look at the criteria by which they are measured?

Gregory Barker: Absolutely, and of course we look at the criteria. I have listened carefully today and in our discussions with my hon. Friend about the criteria, and we are asking Ofgem not to make a cursory comparison, but to establish forensically whether these charges are genuinely cost-reflective.

Julie Elliott: Ofgem’s investigation into Scottish Power has been going on since March 2011. Why does the Minister have faith that Ofgem is looking into this properly and will come up with a real answer?

Gregory Barker: Ofgem will be reporting in the near future as part of the competition test. It has the necessary powers, and we have made it clear that we expect a forensic analysis of the cost differentials and criteria.
	This is not a new phenomenon, however. The Labour party had 13 years to crack it, but it took no action. Moreover, the Leader of the Opposition spent two years as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, so the question is not “Why has it taken since 2011?”, but “Why did Labour do nothing, between 1997 and 2010, when it had the time, the power, the majority and the authority?” What did Labour do? Zero, zip, nothing. So before they ask, in high dudgeon, why we are not acting faster, would they please explain why they did nothing to help consumers for 13 years? When we get a credible answer, we will give their criticisms more credit.
	I do not want to go off on a completely partisan rant, however, because some good questions have been raised, and I do not want to diminish their seriousness. We take the issue of prepayment meters and standard payments seriously, but we are also looking at direct debits. Some 55% of people pay by direct debit and 45% pay by standard payment.

Albert Owen: Did I understand the Minister correctly? On cost reflection, he said that Ofgem still had the power to intervene over the licence. I understood that in 2012 it gave up that power and introduced the retail market review. Is he now saying that Ofgem can still exercise that power? If so, why does he not tell it to do so? Then this debate would be null and void.

Gregory Barker: We have done it already. The hon. Gentleman was not listening. We have spoken to Ofgem, and it has confirmed publicly what we have discussed privately—that this will form a key part of the competition assessment. That is a new development, and a sign that the Government take this seriously and are on the side of consumers. We will not wait 13 years to do something about it.
	We are not just acting for people on prepayment meters or trying to get a better deal for people who pay by a standard payment method; we are taking action to
	get a better deal for people on direct debits as well, because they do not always get a fantastic deal. We know that many people do not realise they are inadvertently building up stores of credit with the energy companies, as has been highlighted by Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), I believe. We will soon be announcing proposals that will give consumers a much better deal. That is just one of the measures we are taking to get a better deal for British consumers, particularly the most vulnerable, and comes on top of the £135 warm home discount, guaranteed winter fuel payments for pensioners and energy efficiency support for the most vulnerable through the ECO.
	This has been a good debate. I am pleased that we were able to benefit from expertise from across the House and that the concerns shared across the House on this issue were properly aired. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and for Chatham and Aylesford for bringing it to the Floor of the House and allowing us to demonstrate that this coalition is taking action for British consumers.

Tracey Crouch: When my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) asked me if I would wind up this debate, I thought it would be a great privilege. Now as I stand here, with my intelligent and beautiful Whip—my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton)—sitting on the Front Bench with her pen poised, I am beginning to wonder whether this will determine whether I shall be a Minister in the future. The Minister was kind enough to offer me some advice, which was: “You’ll do a good job, but please try not to do a great job.” I shall therefore do my best to satisfy both the Whip and the Minister, but also to reflect the important aspects raised in this afternoon’s debate.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this important debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow on securing it. He is a tireless campaigner who always puts his case so expertly, as he has today. His speech was very clear in setting out the scale of the problem. He recognised that the Government have done much on the need to protect consumers, especially when experiencing additional charges. He outlined the case incredibly well, as did many others.
	It is important to note that until the shadow Minister’s speech and the Minister’s speech, there was a great deal of consensus across the House on helping the most vulnerable consumers. The motion focuses on the 17 energy companies that are subjecting customers who do not want to pay by direct debits to charges. It is a great honour that 179 colleagues signed the motion, which shows how important this issue is to us in representing our constituents.
	Those who spoke did so with passion. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) did a great job of standing in at the start. He spoke on energy prices in general and praised the work of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change. Like him, I was reluctant to switch to direct debit initially, preferring, like millions of other people across the country, to have control over when I pay my bills, based on the energy I use. That was reflected in many contributions this afternoon.
	The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) is a consumer champion on many issues. Her emphasis today on prepayment meters demonstrated characteristic concern for our poorest in society. I listened carefully to what she had to say. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) spoke of one of his constituents and raised similar concerns about prepayment meters. The Minister heard those concerns loud and clear, as I am sure did those listening to the debate. I hope that the energy companies also took on board some of the issues that were raised.
	The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) used constituency casework as the basis of her contribution to today’s debate. I was fascinated by the excellent project she highlighted, an advice day surgery involving the big six. With her permission, I might steal it for my constituency, which has areas of deprivation and where we see concerns among particular pockets of energy consumers about paying their bills. I will be in touch with her office to find out precisely how she did that.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) said that the charges should be seen in a wider economic context. She also said that many people felt that they were being penalised for not paying by direct debit, a view that was reflected throughout the debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) that this is as much about social exclusion as it is about unfair charges for those who cannot pay for utilities by direct debit because, for example, they do not have bank accounts. He made that case extremely well.
	As a fellow south-east Member, I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) about rural broadband. However, I think it important to note that those who pay online are not immune to stealth charges. The problem does not just affect those who post cheques or take them to the post office.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made an incredibly important contribution on behalf of his constituents. He pointed out that 38% of people in Northern Ireland pay bills by direct debit, as against 55% in the United Kingdom overall. I thought that that was a very interesting statistic, and I hope that work will be done to establish the reason for it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) spoke of the need for fairness and transparency for our constituents, especially, but not exclusively, the elderly. He said that those who paid bills on time should not be penalised. He also made the very fair point that Labour Members, who had been very critical of some of the Government’s measures, had had 13 years in which to sort the problem out, and had not done so.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) praised the good work of Christians Against Poverty, and spoke of the importance of social contact to those
	who pay their bills at the post office. As a Member of Parliament who highlights the problem of isolation, particularly among the elderly, he was absolutely right to raise that issue.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) certainly made amends for not signing the motion by speaking so knowledgeably about the issue. That was hardly surprising, given his long-term advocacy of consumer protection. He did a good job in, as it were, providing the 180th signature.
	I have a great deal of time and respect for the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), whom I call a friend outside the Chamber, but I have to say that, given the tone of the debate, I was rather disappointed by her response. Opposition Members should remember that the ripping off of consumers by energy companies did not begin in May 2010, and that the Labour party had 13 years in which to stand up for vulnerable consumers and did not do so. The Minister made that point as well, but I was very sad that the debate ended on a party political note.
	I was thrilled to become involved in the campaign initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow. Like many others, I did so because I was contacted by a constituent. Mr Steele, who lives in Lordswood, contacted me because he wanted to pay a number of utility bills online, but felt that he was being penalised for doing so. He said that British Gas had had the cheek to remind him that he would have been £67 better off if he had paid his gas bill by direct debit, and £33 better off if he had paid his electricity bill by that method.
	It has been made very clear that Members want more transparency for their constituents when it comes to energy charges. We know that the charges are high and that they are often hard to justify in view of price increases and the large profits made by the industry, but it is unacceptable that customers are being penalised for choosing to manage their payments in a way that is convenient for them. The motion notes that 45% of people do not pay their energy bills by direct debit, and are being charged for not doing so. I hope that the energy companies will note what has been said here today, and will rectify the position immediately.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House is disappointed that 17 energy companies in the UK charge their customers more if they do not pay their bills by direct debit; acknowledges that some firms do not charge their customers any extra at all; notes that Department of Energy and Climate Change statistics show that this adds £114 to the average consumer’s bill; further notes that 45 per cent of people do not pay their energy bills by direct debit; recognises that over one million people in the UK do not have access to a bank account; believes that these charges are a stealth tax on the poor; and therefore urges Ofgem to hold an inquiry into these practices, encourages energy companies to operate with more transparency, and urges the Government to consider ways of limiting these charges, such as by introducing a cap.

PETITION
	 — 
	Planned Closure of the Portland Coastguard Helicopter Base

Richard Drax: Picking up on the campaign zeal I have experienced in the past 20 minutes in the Chamber, may I say our fight to retain the Portland search and rescue helicopter continues? The petitioners have raised 105,000 or more signatures and I want to pay special tribute to the team that in the main went out in wind or rain: Belinda Craig, Patricia Joy, Debra Joy and Shelley Cutler. I also want to thank Roger McPherson, who has played a large part in co-ordinating that, Councillor Sandy West, a Labour councillor on the island of Portland, who has been very supportive and Dr Ian Mew, a consultant at Dorchester county hospital, who has provided advice and help.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to reverse the decision to close Portland coastguard helicopter base.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Petition of residents of South Dorset,
	Declares that the Government plans to close Portland coastguard helicopter base, despite protests from local people, MPs and hospital consultants; and further that the Petitioners believe that there may be lives lost as a result of losing this search and rescue facility.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to reverse the decision to close Portland coastguard helicopter base.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001317]

DEATHS IN CUSTODY (LEGAL AID)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—(Anne Milton.)

Liam Byrne: I am very sorry to have to rise in my place tonight to bring this debate to the Floor of the House of Commons. For nearly three years I have worked to avoid this debate, and I come here tonight because I have been left with no other choice.
	Let me say at the outset that there is no more determined campaigner for the police of my city than me. For 10 years as a Member of this House I have campaigned for bigger, stronger police teams. I have run half-marathons and triathlons to raise money for the West Midlands Police Benevolent Fund, and it has been my privilege on the Floor of the House to praise the bravery of officers such as PC Adam Koch and his colleague who literally risked their lives to save worshippers recently at a Ward End mosque. I am motivated tonight by their courage, because I believe our police are so important to our communities that they deserve to have the best team around them, but I am motivated too by an injustice that I want to bring to the attention of the Government.
	Because the police service is a human and not a divine organisation, sometimes there are shortcomings, but if we want the best police service, it is important that we do not stand by when there are shortcomings; it is important that we act. For three years now I have been seeking to help a constituent of mine to act. My constituent’s case is sub judice, but I can give the House the essence. My constituent’s son, a boy she loved, died in police custody—a tragedy the pain of which I, as a father of three children, cannot possibly imagine—but this tragedy is deeper and darker for the alleged culpability of police officers who were paid by us on that night to keep my constituent’s son safe.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am very glad my right hon. Friend has brought before the House this issue of people who die in custody. I have informed the Minister of the case of my constituent Philmore Mills. His case is very unusual. He was in hospital in a lung ward, and on 11 December 2011 the staff were made anxious by his behaviour. They called the police and the police restrained him, and he died under police restraint. The inquest into that death is due on 1 April—two and a half years later—yet his family still do not know if they are going to have legal aid for representation at that inquest and they are thus made more anxious still. Their dad was in hospital with a breathing problem, yet he died at the hands of the police. They should be legally represented without having to pay.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I remind Members that they should be very careful about reference to live cases because of the sub judice rule?

Liam Byrne: Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for her intervention.
	In the months that followed the death of my constituent’s son, the family and I sought, together with the Independent Police Complaints Commission, to ensure that the police
	officers involved were judged. I am sorry to say that they were judged to have been so negligent, and to have fallen so far short of their sworn duty, that they were found guilty of gross misconduct.
	Now, the family are approaching the last trial of their strength: the inquest. It will be their final opportunity to find the truth of why and how their son died. Yes, it might bring grief, but I hope that it will also bring closure. The inquest is also important for our community, because it could provide critical insights that would help us to ensure that others need never suffer the same fate.
	Despite my representations and the arguments that we have put forward, the family have been told that they must pay to have questions put on their behalf during the proceedings. Like me, they are outraged. The original bill was going to be nearly £7,500. It is true that their costs have now been reduced, but our system has become perverse. The fact that the family are having to provide a smaller cut of their savings cannot be judged a great success.

Keith Vaz: I thought that my right hon. Friend would like to know that the Home Affairs Select Committee will be opening an inquiry into the issues of deaths in police custody, and policing and mental health, later this year. It will also look into legal aid provision for the families involved.

Liam Byrne: That is very welcome, and I hope that my right hon. Friend and his Committee will be able to draw the right conclusions and, perhaps, use some of the evidence from the case that I am raising here tonight.
	My point is very simple: when a family have lost their son while he was in the custody of the state, and when servants of the Crown have been judged guilty of gross misconduct, it is a gross injustice to tell that family that they must now help to pay their costs at the inquest into how their son lost his life.
	I know the objections to my arguments. There are few in the House who know the pressures on the legal aid budget as well as I do. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I too had to negotiate reductions to that fund. However, if we cannot fund an inquest into a death of which the state appears to be culpable, we have got it wrong. Our article 2 obligations demand a thorough investigation of state action and culpability in cases such as these. Like me, the Minister knows that, following the case of Main in 2007, a wider public interest test must be satisfied if legal aid is to be awarded. A death in state custody, especially when Crown servants have been found negligent, must surely satisfy that test. We in this House agreed to that principle when we passed the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Section 51 of that Act extended the principle of public funding for advocacy at inquests such as these.
	As a parliamentarian, I want to know what happened on that night. That is the wider public interest test that is being satisfied here. I want to know whether we need changes to the law, or to the organisation of the police service. I want to know that, so that I can help to bring those changes forward. I do not want this House, this Government, or this Minister to be kept in the dark. I do not want the comfort of ignorance. I want to know why my constituent’s son died, and I want to know what we must do together in this House to ensure that none of our constituents ever has to face the same fate.

Tessa Munt: I have had a similar case in my constituency. The inquest has now taken place, Mr Speaker. James was in his 20s, and he was mentally ill. He was restrained and, unfortunately, died in police custody. When the police force in question has access to unlimited legal advice and expertise at no quantifiable cost, is it not an outrage that the parents, who are so vulnerable at a time like that, should be asked to seek advice from a local solicitor who is not an expert in mental health or deaths in custody?

Liam Byrne: Let me deal with a point directly. The family did not choose to be in this position; the Coroners Act 1988 demands an inquest. We in this House are the people who insist on the position my constituents are now in, and we do so for a very good reason: we want to know what happened. Our predecessors in this Parliament felt so strongly about the unchecked actions of an arbitrary state that they deposed the monarch and fought a war to insist on the liberty of the individual and a measure of their protection—we want to know what happened.

Jim Shannon: There were 5,998 deaths in police custody in the 11 years from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2010. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there must be a method for families to access support in suspicious cases and that legal aid is an important part of that support for grieving families?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Some will say, “We should not get too worked up about this. The inquest process is inquisitorial not adversarial. It is just a gentle canter around the facts.” But when we are dealing with death in custody, it is different. How can we tell? It is because the public servants represented at the inquests will not just have one lawyer; they will have teams of lawyers, paid for by the taxpayer, on their side. We have to ask ourselves: how can we allow such a profound inequality of arms in the inquest room? How can we pretend to ourselves that that is evenly remotely equal, fair or right? There is no growing evidence, not just in my home city of Birmingham, but across the country, that wrongful legal aid decisions are being made in cases such as this. Many in this House will have seen the tragic case confronting Alex Kelly’s family, which was highlighted in The Observer on Sunday, and INQUEST, an organisation I wish to praise to high heaven, has brought to me a number of other cases where bad decisions are being made in our name.
	In the short time remaining to me, I want to put five questions to the Minister. I appreciate that he will not be able to answer all of them tonight, so I hope that he will follow up in writing and that the House will be able to return to this subject, perhaps in the light of the report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) later in the year. First, will the Minister meet me to discuss the legal aid decision in my constituent’s case? The case clearly meets the threshold of having “wider public interest'” set out in section 2.4 of the Legal Services Commission’s funding code criteria, which refers to the “potential” of the proceedings
	“to produce real benefits for individuals other than the client”.
	Secondly, when will the Lord Chancellor bring into effect section 51 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which will extend advocacy support to those who died
	in custody? No stand part debate was held on that measure and, to the best of my knowledge, the Minister was not in the House to vote on the Bill on Third Reading. I do not believe the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats opposed this legislation when it was brought to the House, so will the Government give us a date for bringing in section 51 as soon as possible?
	Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that it is ministerial policy, and not simply administrative discretion, to seek a contribution from the family in inquests where a death in state custody has occurred? Fourthly, will the Minister tonight agree to a review of the way families are offered support and funding for inquest costs, not least because there is now evidence that the process is out of control, with the most invasive questions being asked of families in order for them to prove they do not have the resources to help contest these cases? Finally, will the Minister tell us how many families have been asked to make a contribution since 2010? What is the total bill that families in this country are now paying for cases such as this?
	When I asked my constituent what she wanted from tonight’s debate, her answer was as generous as she is compassionate. “Hopefully,” she said, “we can change this for other people so that they will not have to suffer what we have suffered.” When all is said and done, the question at the heart of this debate is simple. It is the story of a mother’s loss, a mother’s love and a mother’s search for justice. Will we, in this House, stand on a mother’s side, or will we stand against her? When we begin work in this House each day, we pray for strength and wisdom to make the right decisions. I hope that we can now call on that strength and wisdom and make the right decisions in the case of my constituent and her lost son.

Shailesh Vara: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) on securing this debate, which is on a subject that we can all agree is extremely important. On behalf of the Government, I extend my condolences to the Butler family. It is bad enough that somebody should die—it is difficult for any family member to put up with that—but the circumstances in which Mr Butler died makes it even harder to accept.
	I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I cannot comment in specific details about any case. I hope that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) will appreciate that, too. I can, however, speak in general terms. I will try to address as many of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised as I can, and if there is anything left over, I will certainly write to him.
	I understand that this case deals with legal aid legislation, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Access to Justice Act 1999 was introduced by a Labour Government. It is under that legislation that decisions about exceptional funding cases concerning deaths in police custody, or during the course of police arrest, search, pursuit or shooting, are dealt with solely by the director of legal aid casework at the Legal Aid Agency, which is the successor body of the Legal Services Commission. Ministers have no role in those individual
	decisions. However, I fully appreciate the clear frustration of the right hon. Gentleman, which he has made abundantly clear to us, and the even greater frustration of Mr Butler’s family. It appears that a long time elapsed between the initial application and the final decision on funding. I believe that, along the way, there was also an inquiry conducted by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Fiona Mactaggart: My constituent’s family have been told that there will not be a decision about eligibility for legal aid until the opening of the inquest on 1 April. The Minister seems to imply that there could be a decision before that date. Will he explain why the coroner from Berkshire has said that no decision will be made on whether there will be a Middleton inquiry until the inquest is open?

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady seeks to tempt me into territory into which I cannot go. What I will say is that as far as her constituent’s case is concerned, the process is still ongoing. As I understand it, a decision on legal aid has not been made, and dialogue is still going on. I trust she will accept that.
	Although I cannot comment on the decision concerning Mr Butler’s family, I understand from the Legal Aid Agency that there was an issue concerning financial eligibility and whether it was appropriate for the family to pay a contribution, which is something that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. I hope I can assist the House by explaining how the means test is applied to inquest cases. Legal aid for the representation of bereaved families at inquests is means-tested, like nearly every other element of the civil legal aid scheme. It is important that we focus our limited resources on those who need them the most, and the means test is an important and long-standing part of the legal aid system which has been in place since well before this Government came to power.
	There is discretion to waive the financial eligibility limits for inquests if, in all the circumstances, it would not be reasonable to expect the family to bear the full costs of legal assistance at the inquest. Whether that is reasonable will depend in particular on the history of the case, the circumstances, the issues raised against state institutions, the applicant’s assessed disposable income and capital, the other financial resources of the family and the estimated costs of providing representation. Contributions from the applicant can also be waived in whole or part.
	That is the position under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, but it was also the position under the Access to Justice Act 1999, the legislation that applied to Mr Butler’s case.

Liam Byrne: The Minister is replying in a courteous and thoughtful manner. He has given us a number of helpful words about the broad principles of the means-testing regime, but I hope he will not elide over the point that when we passed the 2009 Act we decided to include section 51, which accepted that there were wider public interests at play in inquests that delved into deaths in state custody and explicitly provided for full legal aid costs to be provided to families in such cases. The Lord Chancellor has not implemented section 51. The arguments about it have already been rehearsed and the House has passed it. When will it be implemented?

Shailesh Vara: In the same way as the previous Administration did not implement it for 11 years—

Liam Byrne: It was the 2009 Act.

Shailesh Vara: Well, the previous Government made provision for it but they did not implement it. I do not know when it will be implemented, but I am happy to reflect on that matter and write to the right hon. Gentleman. Let me put on the record that the criteria under the Access to Justice Act still apply, as that was the Act that was applicable when Mr Butler’s case first arose.

Tessa Munt: Will the Minister give way?

Shailesh Vara: I shall give way for the very last time and on the understanding that the hon. Lady will be very brief, as I am determined to get through a lot of material that I must put on the record.

Tessa Munt: I shall be brief. When the Minister is reviewing the situation, will he consider whether it is appropriate for applicants to be pressured—there is no other word to describe it—to seek local and non-specialist advice from solicitors and therefore barristers who have no knowledge about taking on something such as a police force, with all its expertise?

Shailesh Vara: I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate that I cannot comment on pressures in the individual cases to which she is alluding or on specific cases.
	Guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor under the 1999 Act says on contributions:
	“Where it is appropriate for a contribution to be payable this may be based upon the applicant’s disposable income and disposable capital in the usual way ignoring upper eligibility limits. Contributions should always be based on what can reasonably be afforded by the applicant and his or her family in all the circumstances of the case.”
	It is worth underlining that we do not have a red-line rule on financial eligibility for inquests in the same way as we do for most other categories of law for which civil legal aid is available. There are a large number of variables, as I have mentioned, that the Legal Aid Agency considers when deciding whether to exercise its discretion to waive the limits.
	It is also worth making it clear that, contrary to certain reports, there has been no substantive change to legal aid provision for inquests as a result of the recent reforms to the system. On that issue, both the right hon. Gentleman’s party and mine are in agreement. Let me assure the House that legal aid for inquests has been protected by this Government.
	Legal help—in other words, the advice and assistance level of legal aid—remains within the general scope of the scheme, subject to merits and means-testing. That can cover all the preparatory work associated with the inquest, which might include preparing written submissions to the coroner. Notwithstanding the pressure on the public finances, the Government made a clear commitment to bereaved families by ensuring that legal help was retained in inquest cases.
	Legal aid for representation can also be provided exceptionally where certain criteria are met. Those criteria have remained largely unchanged from those that operated under the 1999 Act. Let me be clear that under the new
	statutory scheme all individual decisions on legal aid, including exceptional funding decisions, are taken by the director of legal aid casework at the Legal Aid Agency.
	However, the Lord Chancellor has published guidance setting out the general circumstances in which he considers that exceptional funding may be required under section 10 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The director of legal aid casework is not bound by that guidance, but he must have regard to it when reaching individual decisions, together with any representations made by applicants on the individual case or any new and relevant case law.
	Under section 10 of LASPO, the director of legal aid casework can grant exceptional funding for representation at an inquest where it is required by article 2 of the European convention on human rights, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Article 2 confers a “right to life” and imposes on states a substantive obligation not to take life without justification and to establish a framework of laws, precautions and means of enforcement that will, to the greatest extent reasonably practicable, protect life. The other ground on which the director can grant funding for representation at an inquest is where representation for the family is likely to produce significant wider public benefits, meaning significant benefits for a class of person other than the members of the family involved.
	On the coronial system, I know that concerns persist about the length of time some cases take to progress. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 includes a number of provisions that will help to tackle delays in the coronial system, including a new power for the Chief Coroner to direct a coroner to conduct an investigation into a death. There is now greater flexibility on where post-mortem examinations and inquests can be held. They can now happen outside the coroner’s area.
	The 2009 Act also requires coroners to notify the Chief Coroner of any investigation that has lasted more than 12 months. The Chief Coroner is then required to provide a summary of such cases in his annual report to the Lord Chancellor, which is laid before Parliament, together with reasons for the delays and any steps he is taking to prevent such delays from becoming unnecessarily lengthy.
	While this debate has focused on legal aid, the coronial system and the police, there is, of course, a broader issue at stake. Let me be clear that the Government take deaths in custody extremely seriously. Deaths in custody are among the most scrutinised of all incidents. All deaths in custody are subject to a number of investigations, including, in the case of police custody, an independent investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Of course, an inquest is also held. Those investigations will usually involve the participation of the bereaved family.
	I should like to acknowledge the ongoing work of the ministerial council on deaths in custody, which incorporates senior decision makers, experts and practitioners in the field. This allows for an extended, cross-sector approach to deaths in custody and is designed to ensure better learning and sharing of information. The council works to ensure that lessons learned in any area of state custody are disseminated across the police, prisons, approved premises, immigration, detention, and secure hospitals. The council commenced operation in 2009
	and is jointly funded by the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health and the Home Office. The House will want to know that funding has been extended until March 2015.
	Let me again thank the right hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members who have spoken. I hope that I have been able to offer some reassurance as to the position concerning legal aid, what the Government are doing to tackle delays in the coronial system, and the
	Government’s position on deaths in custody more generally. To the extent that there are matters outstanding, I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to have a meeting with him as well, although, as I say, my ability to influence the Legal Aid Agency is somewhat limited.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.